Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Indiana houses of the nineteenth century"

See other formats



From the library of Francis J. Koenig 

Library of the University of Illinois 
AT Urbana-Champaign 


Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

Wilbur D. Peat 




Indianapolis 1962 

Copyright © 1962 by the Indiana Historical Society 
Reprinted by Offset 1969 

This volume has been prepared and published under 
grants to the Indiana Historical Society from 
Lilly Endowment, Inc. 



FVEKY AME^CAN who is in the habit of traveling, which is almost 
equivalent to saying every American, must have noticed the inexhaustible 
demand for rural residences that is perceptible in every part of the Northern 
States. Nothing like it has yet occurred in the world's history; and although hard 
times undoubtedly occur in America, as well as elsewhere, at occasional intervals, it 
would seem that the profits which are missed by one man, contrive, somehow, to slide 
into the pockets of other more successful operators; for the carpenters and masons appear 
to be always getting a full percentage of the floating capital, and the hall is kept merrily 
rolling under all changes of individual circumstances. 

Such being the fact, whatever may be its philosophy, it seems evident that the 
season must come when the importance of the whole subject of domestic architecture 
will be fairly and fully recogni^d. It can not he possible that the energetic vitality 
which pervades this branch of home manufacture will, for any great length of time, 
remain satisfied to expend its intensity on meagre, monotonous, unartistic buildings, 
or that it will continue to pay out millions of dollars every year without the propriety 
of getting, habitually, something worth having for the money. In an intelligent age and 
country like this, ugly buildings should be the exception: not, as hitherto, the almost 
invariable rule. 

The above transcript, which has a surprisingly contemporary ring, 
was written by an architect a little less than a hundred years ago. 
It appeared as the opening remarks in Calvert Vaux's work, Villas 
and Cottages, A Series of Designs Prepared for Execution in the United States 
(1869). My reason for quoting it is not so much to use it as the text 
of a sermon, lamenting the poor quality and low artistic worth of so 
many houses in our mushrooming suburban developments (which I 
am tempted to do), but to reiterate the first lines of his second para- 
graph: I, too, hope the time will come when the importance of the 
entire subject of domestic architecture will be fairly and fully recog- 
nized in this country. V 


This book can do nothing to improve the quahty of mass- 
produced small homes in our time. This is not its purpose. But it 
might make a contribution to the "entire subject of domestic archi- 
tecture" by helping us analyze and judge architectural compositions, 
as well as by enabling us to appreciate some of the best of our fore- 
fathers' efforts in their desire to build good domiciles for them- 
selves. But more about this later. 

Here I would like to express my appreciation to the many people 
who helped make this book possible. I wish that I could somehow 
thank Calvert Vaux, and his partner Andrew Jackson Downing, and 
Asher Benjamin, and a score of other nineteenth-century architects 
for their treatises. Likewise, many living architects and architeaural 
historians have aided through their books, their magazine articles, 
and, in some instances, their valuable suggestions after reading the 
manuscript. Special mention may be made of the help given by Walter 
Creese, John T. Forbes, and Howard E. Wooden. 

Assistance was given, too, by many people working voluntarily 
on the county survey project who sent to the office of the Indiana 
Historical Society photographs and descriptions of old houses in 
their sections of the state. Acknowledgment of their help is made 
at the end of this volume. 

Wilbur D. Peat 


John Herron Art Museum, Indianapolis 
March, 1962 


Introduction xi 
I. Architectural Styles of the Nineteenth Century 3 
n. . The Federal Mode 9 

III. The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals 37 

IV. The Gothic Mode 85 

V. Composite Styles and the Octagon Plan 91 
VI. The Anglo-Italian Mode 1 1 7 
VII. The Franco-American Mode 129 
VIII. The Neo-Jacobean Mode 149 
IX. The French Romanesque Mode 158 
X. Indiana Architects of the Nineteenth Century 181 
Acknowledgments 191 
Index by Towns 193 



Plates I through ^2 follow page 20 

Federal Style 





Harrison House, "Grouseland," Vincennes 
Vance— Tousey House, Lawrenceburg 
Floyd— Hendricks-Griffin House, Corydon 
Coffin-Foreman House, Fountain City 
McKee-Powell- White House, Madison 
Allison-Hyatt House, Madison 
Robinson-Schofield House, Madison 
Goudie- Moore House, east of Brookville 
Bookwalter— Lordan House, south of Rob Roy 
Mills-Gregg House, Crawfordsville 
Stout— Brown House, west of Bloomington 
Ames-Paton House, west of La Porte 
Lantz-Mulligan-Boyd House, Centerville 
Jeremiah Sullivan House, Madison 
Wylie-Hershey House, Bloomington 
Roberts- Morton House, east of Newburgh 
Elston House, Crawfordsville 
Speakman— Tallentire-Johnson House, north of 

Rising Sun 
Howland-Goodwin-Strohmier House, Brookville 
Typical Federal-style doors, Taylor- May House, 

Grisamore— Tyler House, Jeffersonville 
Gramelspacher-Gutzweiler House, Jasper 
Dufour— Andrew House, Vevay 
Conner-Lilly House, south of Noblesville 
Dewees-Preston— Smith House, Terre Haute 
Witt-Myers House, Dublin 
Smith-Huston House, south of Connersville 

Roman and Greek Revival 

27. Ellis-La Plante House, Vincennes 

28. Lanier— Jeffery House, Madison 

29. Kintner— Withers House, south of Laconia 

30. Canal House, Connersville 

31. Rowell— Champion House, Goshen 

32. Stockwell-Geiger House, Lafayette 

Plates 3 3 through g6 follow page 52 

3 3. Billingsley-Miller House, west of Hartford 
34. Swayzee— Erlewine House, Marion 

3 5. Walker-Ewing House, Logansport 

36. Hawkins-Lane House, Crawfordsville 

37. Tripp-Cull-Johnson House, North Vernon 

38. Hanna-Hayden House, Fort Wayne 

39. Campbell-Banta House, Crawfordsville 

40. Burgess— Schnelker House, New Haven 

41. Potter House, Lafayette 

42. Peacock-Poston House, Attica 

43. Wright-Monroe House, west of Vevay 

44. Marsh- Wesbecker House, Madison 

4 5. Howe House, Howe 

46. Wheeler-Gould- Mosier House, Bristol 

47. Provolt-McGuire House, Rolling Prairie 

48. Fowler-Oberholtzer House, Bristol 

49. Butler-Lewis House, Dupont 

50. Wilson-Gleason House, Peru 

5 1. Armstrong-Copeland House, Vevay 

52. Gray— Thompson House, 

southeast of Glenwood 

5 3. Henry— Clawson House, Delphi 

54. Kikendall-Welling House, north of Madison 

55. Rapp-Maclure-Owen House, New Harmoily 

56. Foster-Schuck House, northwest of Rolling 


57. Vore-Hunnicutt House, west of Dublin 

58. Amick-Ward House, northwest of Scipio 

59. Smith-Anderson House, Perrysville 

60. McMurtrie— Rupert House, east of Attica 

6 1. Ewing House, Fort Wayne 


62. Conklin- Montgomery House, Cambridge City 

6 3. Read-Foster-Reese House, Vernon 

64. Jones-Hampton House, Perrysville 

65. Grizard—Sieglitz House, Vevay 

66. Murphy-Bailey House, New Castle 

67. Holstein-Whitsitt House, Madison 

68. Carpenter House, Evansville 

69. McDonald-Scribner House, Attica 

70. Schenck-Griffith House, Vevay 

71. Milford-Miller House, Attica 

72. Shrewsbury— Windle House, Madison 

73. Lanier House, Madison 

74. Parlor of the James F. D. Lanier House 

GotKic Revival 






Thompson- Mount-Ruble House, 

west of Greensburg 
Lyons-Jones House, Rochester 
Hunt-Hicks House, west of Danville 
Lehman-Rogers House, Hanover 
Halstead-Campbell House, Franklin 
Durborow— Broadie-Davisson House, 

Chapin— Willis House, South Bend 
Fowler House, Lafayette 
Dewey-Clawson House, Delphi 
Ornamental gable, Sansberry-Riggs House, 

near Fairbanks 
Ramey-Milligan House, Crawfordsville 
Dumont— Miller House, Vevay 
Owen House, New Harmony 
Stone-Herron House, north of Wabash 
Swallow House, east of Pennville 

Composite Style 

89. Houck— Harris House, Centerville 

90. Hackleman-Dillon House, Rushville 

9 1. Heritage-Cortner House, Knightstown 

92. Riddile-Loomis House, Battle Ground 

Octagon Type 

93. Horne-Michael-Sargent House, Cloverdale 

94. Crooks-Painter-Anderson House, Rockport 
9 5. Hall-Crull House, west of Raleigh 

96. Rose-Kuehl House, Valparaiso 

Plates 97 through 12S follow page 100 


97. Riley House, Greenfield 

98. Beeson House, west of Bentonville 

99. Stonebraker-Harter House, Hagerstown 

00. Sloan-Paris House, New Albany 

01. Dietz-Ogden House, Lawrenceburg 

02. Pleak House, north of Greensburg 

03. Heaton-Bond-Irwin House, Michigantown 

04. Hauck-Schaeffer House, west of Kokomo 

05. Swan-Anderson House, La Porte 

06. Ludovici-Cajacob House, Terre Haute 

07. Sage-Robinson-Nagel House, Terre Haute 

08. Gonter-Davis House, Brazil 

09. Youngman-Becker House, southeast of Fairfield 

10. Benjamin Harrison House, Indianapolis 

1 1. James Whitcomb Riley House, Indianapolis 

12. Bals-Wocher House, Indianapolis 

1 3. Coleman-Lairy House, Logansport 

14. Waldron-Frasch House, Lafayette 

1 5. Guthrie-Pickett House, Tunnelton 

16. Hamilton-Hunter House, Shelbyville 

17. Smith— Cripe House, Kendallville 

18. Edwards-Aimone House, Clinton 

19. Justice-Puterbaugh House, Logansport 

20. McCord-Stoll House, New Albany 

21. Drover-Ditzler House, Huntington 

22. McClelland-Layne House, Crawfordsville 
2 3. Sonntag-Kiechle House, Evansville 

24. Foellinger-Lutes House, Fort Wayne 

2 5. Cromie House, New Albany 

26. Sutton-Turner House, Richmond 


127. Thompson— Sconce House, Edinburg 

128. Nixon-Fosdick House, Liberty 

Plates 129 through 160 follow page 132 

129. Howard-Patrick House, Indianapolis 

1 30. Hoerner— Zuttermeister House, Richmond 

131. Tumey- Mathews House, Rising Sun 

132. Bachman-Pitman House, Logansport 

133. Stumpf House, IndianapoHs 

134. Rinehart—Baum House, Delphi 

135. Fitch House, Lawrenceburg 

136. Mendenhall- Miller House, Richmond 

137. Albert E. Fletcher House, Indianapolis 

138. Heilman House, Evansville 

139. Daum-Johnson House, Connersville 

140. Wolcott House, Wolcott 

141. Service- Vurpillat House, New Carlisle 

142. Beckner-Nelson House, west of Arlington 

143. GafF-Stark House, "Hillforest," Aurora 

144. Hess-Penn House, Goshen 

145. Hoshour-Medsker-Taylor House, 

Cambridge City 

146. McNamee-Eilts House, Wabash 
F. P. Nelson House, Greencastle 

Franco- American 

147. Howell— Dare House, north of Brookville 

148. Gillett— Newman House, Evansville 

149. Kilgore-Garber House, Peru 

1 50. Hyatt House, Washington 

151. Fletcher— Wasson House, Indianapolis 

1 52. Reis House, Evansville 

153. Reitz House, Evansville 

154. Culbertson-McDonald House, New Albany 

155. Morris-Butler-Pace House, Indianapolis 

156. Probasco-Morrison-Silver House, Knightstown 

1 57. Nisbet— Koch House, Evansville 

158. Hayes-Cook House, Lawrenceburg 

1 59. Sample— Hutchison— Little House, Lafayette 

160. Matthews-Culbertson House, Ellettsville 


Plates 161 through i(^^ follow page 164 

161. Clevenger-McConaha House, Centerville 

162. Hanson— Dowden House, Indianapolis 

163. Daugherty— Tobian House, Shelbyville 

164. Weesner— Talbert House, Wabash 

165. Gilmore House, Greencastle 

166. Wilson— Beck House, Washington 

167. Woodfill— Robbins House, Greensburg 

168. Kitselman-Rector House, Muncie 

169. Hill-Phillips House, Plymouth 

170. Wood-Royse— Speisshofer House, Warsaw 

171. Redmond-Healy House, Logansport 
Staircase, Boyd-Love House, Indianapolis 

172. Hignite-Wendel House, Columbus 

173. Morris— Swearingen House, Indianapolis 
Fireplace, Boyd-Love House, Indianapolis 

174. Shepherd-Sowder House, Indianapolis 

175. Schmidt— Schaf House, Indianapolis 

176. Emery— Ayres House, Indianapolis 

177. Tate— Willis House, Indianapolis 

178. Rogers-Krieger House, Michigan City 

179. Dale— Zook House, Goshen 

180. Barrett-Frazier House, Knightstown 

18 1. Churchman House, Indianapolis 

182. Orr-Richter House, La Porte County 

183. Fildes— Wilson House, La Porte 

184. Perrin-Steill House, Lafayette 

185. Smith-Kielsmeier House, Rochester 

French Romanesque 

186. Seiberling-Kingston House, Kokomo 

187. Porter-Kerrigan House, Michigan City 

188. Cox— Stewart House, Indianapolis 

189. Bates-McGowan House, Indianapolis 

190. Hull-Wiehe House, Fort Wayne 

191. Taylor-Zent House, Huntington 

192. Vaughan-Reath House, Richmond 

193. Studebaker House, South Bend 


THE SUBJECT OF OLD HOUSES can be treated in so 
many different ways that a word about the purpose of this 
book may not be amiss. We are not concerned here with 
celebrated historical homes, but rather with well-designed houses. 
The examples chosen for reproduction are not necessarily the dwell- 
ings of famous people, but they are architectural works of considera- 
ble distinction and they represent the styles preferred by successive 
generations between 1800 and 1900. 

Here, then, is told in words and pictures the evolution of domestic 
architecture in Indiana during the nineteenth century. That it might 
lead to greater appreciation of our state's heritage and to better 
understanding of American architecture in general is the hope of the 
author and his editorial helpers. Indiana's architecture does not differ 
to any great extent from that of other states, and if the reader fa- 
miliarizes himself with local examples and learns how to distinguish 
one style from another, he can apply this knowledge to the analysis 
of houses which he sees in other parts of the country. This statement 
is made, however, with certain reservations: there are no Georgian 
Colonial houses of the eighteenth century in this area because it was not 
settled until after 1800; nor are there any Spanish Colonial examples 
such as one finds in the Southwest. 

It is our expectation that a book such as this will result not only 
in a better understanding of Indiana's architectural heritage, but also 
that it will make people realize that architecture is a form of artistic 
expression which deserves more than a passing glance. It is a curious 
fact that the form of art most in evidence seems to attract the least 
attention on the part of the general public, and is the least appreciated 
and understood. To most people buildings are merely buildings; and 
while the casual observer is able to distinguish his own house from XI 


his neighbor's, or a church from a courthouse, he is seldom aware of 
styhstic differences, and probably not at all familiar with terms that 
might designate the types. It is the author's experience that the 
majority of people who are faced with the problem of trying to name 
this or that style of house have only two words at their command: 
Colonial and Victorian. Unfortunately, the first is not applicable to 
nineteenth-century architecture and the second is far too general a 
term to have much significance or to be of any help in classifying 
houses or public buildings. 

Architecture, like painting, music, and poetry, is basically design. 
A building is a symphony of shapes and lines, lights and shadows, 
textures and colors, combined to bring to the eyes of the observer 
distinct aesthetic experiences. Sometimes these elements unite to create 
a sober, quiet impression; at other times they produce a restless, lively 
one. Some houses are unassuming and modest; others are pompous 
and arrogant. Some suggest intimzcy; others express aloofness. 

These, and many more, are the impressions left on our senses by 
houses when we stop to observe them. And these impressions are all 
valid — that is, a house should have character, style, "personality." 

A classic type (chaste, formal, and lucid in plan) is not necessarily 
better or worse than a romantic type. Through observation and 
analysis of buildings we learn that they not only differ in style but also 
in relative excellence, depending upon the degree of knowledge and 
artistic sensitivity underlying their creation. Our natural inclination 
to admire one style and condemn another — for instance, to eulogize 
the Neo-Classic and satirize the Victorian — tends to disappear when 
our critical judgments develop to a point where we understand and 
appreciate the best of each successive movement and can see wherein 
some architects succeeded and others failed to produce something 
fine within a given cultural framework. 

The panorama of domestic architecture in Indiana is rich and 
challenging. Some of her houses are among the most handsome in the 
United States. Others are less notable but not less successful architec- 
turally. The reader will be interested, no doubt, to see how widely 
scattered these houses are over the state: along the Ohio and Wabash 
Xll rivers, across the northern zone, along the National Road, and at 


many points between. The earliest examples are found, of course, in 
the oldest towns, and the best are in towns where the citizens had 
suihcient wealth to employ good carpenters, masons, and architects — 
although the last were not generally available in this part of the 
country in the first years of the nineteenth century. 

Influences of buildings in neighboring states to the east and south 
can be detected in many of the houses in Indiana. As settlers moved 
into the new lands, they brought with them clear impressions of the 
houses they formerly had lived in, and as soon as their economic status 
permitted, they erected new homes comparable to those left behind. 

Among the first dwellings erected by the early settlers were log 
cabins. As fascinating and romantic as these are to many people today, 
they are not being considered in this book because our theme is 
artistic architectural design, not mere housing. It should be pointed 
out, however, that numerous log cabins and log houses are to be 
found in Indiana today. 

Contrary to popular belief, all of the dwellings erected by the first 
settlers were not necessarily of log construction, nor were log cabins 
exclusively used at any one time. While it is true that they represent 
the typical home of the pioneer who settled in a wooded area, they 
were erected in different parts of the state at different times, some 
fairly late in the nineteenth century. In many early communities log 
houses stood beside or not far from frame and brick buildings, only 
to be replaced by more stately domiciles when the owners could 
afford something better. When, for instance, the Lincoln family was 
living in the humblest sort of log cabin in Spencer County (1816- 
1830), there were many fine residences in southern Indiana. 

Among the best-known houses of log construction in the state are 
Westfall place, Corydon (the log section was built in 1807), the Granny 
White house now at Spring Mill State Park, the Abel Carpenter cabin 
at McCormick's Creek State Park, the Joseph Bailly homestead near 
Chesterton, and the log cabin now owned by the Daughters of the 
American Revolution at Lebanon. Another veteran of log construction 
is the original Wayne County Courthouse, built at Salisbury in 181 1, 
moved to Richmond and used as a residence for many years. It is now 
in Centerville, preserved as a historic pioneer building. Xlll 


Another type of house which will be missed, perhaps, by some 
readers of this book is the one that has historical significance but which 
has been so extensively remodeled and altered that little of its original 
architectural character remains. In this category' are the Nathaniel 
Ewing home of 1806, "Mount Clair," east of Vincennes; the old 
Amos Butler house, "The Hermitage," of 18 17, at Brookville; the 
Hugh McCuUochhouseof 1838, the John Matson house of 1848, and 
the Thomas Swinney homestead of 1844, all in Fort Wayne; the John 
Van Trees house, dating around 1830, at Washington; the Jesse Hol- 
man house of about 1835 at Aurora; the Webb Wallace house, now 
owned bv George E. Meeker, in Peru; the English homestead near 
Lexington, Scott County; the Isaac Evans house on the north edge of 
Richmond, now known as "Quaker Hill"; the Whitcomb-Matthews 
house (home of two Indiana governors) southwest of Clinton; and 
the Bonner-Allen mansion at Vincennes. 

A few altered houses have been included, however, such as the 
Henry S. Lane homestead, Crawfordsville, with its recent two-story 
classic porch; the Howland-Goodwin-Strohmier house in Brookville, 
with its relatively new semicircular portico; and the Tripp-Cull- 
Johnson home at North Vernon with a similar portico. 

Many simple frame or brick houses, whether of modest or grand 
proportions, have also been left out of this book for lack of space. 
This must not be construed as a lack of interest on the part of the 
author in the small Rappite houses at New Harmony such as the 
Fauntleroy house and the one recently restored by the Colonial 
Dames, or in such cabins as the birthplace of John Hay at Salem. 
Others which might be mentioned are the Paul Dresser birthplace at 
Terre Haute, the Edward Eggleston home at Vevay, the Joel Scribner 
house at New Albany, and the Winchel-Burkhart home at Brookville, 
built in 181 1. Another cottage which has been left out for lack of 
space is the "Old Homestead," home of Clarabel Clark Bevan at 
Crown Point. 

And finally, another category of houses that is of interest but 
which has been largely passed by comprises the homes of political or 
literary figures of Indiana, for, with a few exceptions, these have little 
XIV artistic or stylistic merit, or were built after 1900. 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 


Architectural Styles of the 
Nineteenth Century 

N THE BROADEST SENSE, the nineteenth century was the 
period of romanticism in all the arts. It was marked by individ- 
uality of thought, personal expression, spirited exploration. No 
firmly established canons of taste kept the artists within a mold for 
any length of time. Strange and often exotic subjects intrigued the 
painters, while buildings of the remote past and in foreign countries 
attracted the attention of architeas. Revivals of historic building styles 
followed one another in rapid succession or developed concurrently, 
modified to meet the comforts of nineteenth-century living and al- 
tered to suit the tastes of nineteenth-century architects and clients. 

Not only were several traditional European (and some Oriental) 
modes of building recast on our soil, but our architectural designers 
had no qualms about combining styles which hitherto had been re- 
garded as incompatible or even mutually antagonistic. These mixed 
modes, together with reinterpreted styles borrowed from abroad, pro- 
duced during the century an effect of variety, novelty, and, for many 
people, confusion. 

The word used most frequently by architects and writers of the 
nineteenth century in describing contemporary buildings, particularly 
in the second half of the century, was "picturesque." This architec- 
tural picturesqueness resulted from the use of projections, bays, towers, 
piazzas, window headings, brackets, and, in the case of the Gothic 
Revival, carved tracery, ornamental bargeboards, and pinnacles. The 
all-over effect of mass and silhouette was likewise varied and complex. 
If this term is kept in mind, we can better understand the aims of 
the architects and better appreciate the results of their creative efforts. 
One fundamental requisite in understanding and appreciating a work 
of art is knowledge of the artist's intention. When we know that the 
designer of a house set out to make a charming, embellished abode for 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

his client — in contrast, for instance, to an austere, sober dwelling — 
we are not likely to look for features which were not intended to be 
there and less likely to judge it adversely. 

Today we look back to the last century with mixed feelings, espe- 
cially to the last decades. Many of our contemporaries think of the 
Victorians as pompous, newly rich people with bad taste and stuffy 
manners, living in semicomical houses crowned with mansard roofs 
and overlaid with gingerbread ornamentation. To the architectural 
historian, on the other hand, it appears to be a time of individual 
expression and the striving for a building vernacular on the part of 
architects and clients, based largely on new interpretations of old 
styles or modes. 

While fundamentally romantic, architecture of the nineteenth 
century nevertheless reveals a strong inclination toward the classic 
idiom, particularly in the opening decades and again at the close of the 
period. These two currents of artistic expression appeared at times 
concurrently, with more emphasis on one than on the other; at other 
times they became mixed and amalgamated to produce new medleys, 
which some people regard as distinct American building styles. And 
so, few of the borrowed styles remained pure or traditionally correct 
in the hands of American carpenter-builders or architects. As we shall 
see, the Greek Revival evolved into something unlike anything to be 
found on Greek soil. Americans produced a pseudo-Grecian type of 
domestic architecture entirely our own and one of the most satisfying 
building forms known. The same applies to the other revivals: Italian 
medieval, French late Renaissance, English Tudor, and so forth. 

Perhaps at this point a brief survey of architectural styles of the 
nineteenth century will be helpful. 

The century opened with a manner of building which is usually 
called Federal or New Republican. In the East it appeared around 
1780 (following the Revolutionary War) and continued to be fash- 
ionable until about 1830. In Indiana it ran from 1800 (when Indiana 
Territory was established) to about 1840. Many people are inclined 
to call the houses of this period Colonial, but a comparison of the 
two styles will show several differences, even though the Federal is an 
A off-shoot and successor of the Georgian Colonial. 

Architectural Styles of the Nineteenth Century 

Then came the Roman and Greek Revivals, frequently referred to 
as the Classic Revival movement. The Roman, largely fostered by 
Thomas Jefferson, had little influence on domestic architecture as a 
vi'hole — particularly in the midwestern states. The Greek, carried out 
in a variety of ways, ranging from small templelike dwellings to plain, 
well-proportioned farmhouses, was the accepted style in this area from 
about 1835 to around 1850. 

Next in vogue were the picturesque styles, inspired by medieval 
European architecture. The Gothic Revival, long fermenting and 
evolving in England, reached the United States early in the century 
and became popular in Indiana in the 1850's. In sharp contrast to the 
classical idiom of quiet simplicity, the Gothic exploited informality 
and richness based on medieval ornamentation. 

Contemporary with the Gothic Revival was the Italianate or Ital- 
ian Revival movement, which in its earlier stages showed a strong 
inclination toward informality of plan and massing, but later tending 
toward Renaissance balance and symmetry. Ornamental lintels, fancy 
porches, and extended eaves supported by brackets were the principal 
new features. When towers were added, they took the form of the 
Italian campanile. This was the stylish mode during the Civil War 
period and for several years after. 

Following the Italianate there appeared the French mode, based on 
the French Second Empire movement of the 1870's. This is charac- 
terized in most American houses by the mansard roof and frequently 
by an abundance of ornamentation derived from late Renaissance 
prototj'pes. Like the Italianate, some of the houses have towers and 
have become in the public's mind the pre-eminent expression of Vic- 
torian pomposity. 

It should be pointed out here that along side these rather clearly 
recognizable revivals there appeared a number of short-lived, exotic 
movements. Houses were designed in Byzantine, Saracenic, Moorish, 
Swiss, Norman, and other styles, most of which have little resem- 
blance to the original models. While plans and elevations of these are 
found in many of the builders' manuals of that period, few of them 
were carried out, particularly in this part of the country. 

After the French mansard influence waned, there developed a 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

movement known variously as the Eastlake, the Queen Anne Revival, 
and the Free Classic style. It appeared a little before 1880 and died out 
in the iSgo's. Theoretically there were two movements developing 
side by side — the Eastlake and the new Queen Anne- — but their indi- 
vidual characteristics were not clearly defined by the exponents of the 
movements, nor have later critics shed much light on the subject, with 
the result that no clear differentiation separates the two. Nearly every 
house built in the eighties and nineties in our American cities falls 
into this general category, which we shall call here the Neo-Jacobean 

At the same time another revival of the Gothic vernacular was 
advanced which was more suitable for large civic buildings and 
churches than for domestic structures. It became known as the Vic- 
torian Gothic. 

The nineteenth century closed with the exploitation of the French 
Romanesque on the one hand and a Colonial Revival on the other, 
both championing the cause of greater simplicity and a return to 
architectural honesty. The transition from the Free Classic or Neo- 
Jacobean to the Romanesque Revival is best seen in the preference for 
heavy stone walls and round-arched openings and in the use of large 
round towers and turrets, based on French chateau prototypes and 
very different from the preceding Italian campaniles or French man- 
sard towers. 

The chart on the following page may help in visualizing these 
movements in relation to one another. Dates pertain to Indiana, which 
are about ten years later than in eastern states. 

The reader must be warned that beginnings and endings of archi- 
tectural trends cannot be precisely established. In the first place, dates 
vary in different parts of the country. As mentioned above, most styles 
did not reach Indiana until approximately ten years after their intro- 
duction in the East. Second, the temperaments and tastes of indi- 
vidual builders — the people having the houses built — ranged from 
decided conservatism to daring modernism. It was as true in the nine- 
teenth century as it is today that the seeker of new and fresh ideas 
builds an ultramodern house long before the style is generally ac- 
cepted, and that the worshiper of the time-honored and familiar 

Architectural Styles of the Nineteenth Century 

<io i> 

builds a similar home long after the style has ceased to be the height 
of fashion. 

And the reader must be warned about something else in using this 
chart. The diagram has been kept simple, but its very simplicity can 
be misleading. Architecture — particularly that of the nineteenth cen- 
tury — is varied and complex, as was pointed out earlier, and while the 
major movements can be charted, many divergent and original direc- 
tions were taken and many mixtures concocted — some of which will 
be discussed later. Nevertheless, if this warning is heeded, the chart 
can help the observer detect a kind of order in what might otherwise 
appear chaos; and it should enable him to identify the major stylistic 
types and call them by name. Diversity then becomes interesting 
rather than confusing. 

Diversity of architectural styles in our country has long been rec- 
ognized by architects and historians as something typically American, 
and many people have stepped to the front to explain if not to defend 
it. Almost a century ago, for instance, Calvert Vaux stated in his book 
Villas and Cottages: 

In the United States it would seem that diversities of style and strong contrasts 
of architectural design are a perfectly natural occurrence, -when we take into account 
the early history of the nation and the circumstances under which it sprang into its 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 


present prominent position. . . . The art of building faithfully portrays the social 
history' of the people to whose needs it ministers, hut can not get beyond those bound- 
aries. We must remember, therefore, that principles of action, perceptions, convictions, 
habits of thought, and customs are the directors of all architectural design, and that 
wherever and however it may exist, it is one of several national exponents, not an 
independent affair with a cut-and-dried theoretical existence. Good architecture of some 
kind must spring up in a society where there is a love of truth and nature, and a 
generally diffused spirit of politeness in the ordinary habits of thought. 

The Federal Mode 


EXCEPT for Spanish and French influences, American archi- 
■ tecture of the eighteenth century was based on English mod- 
els, chiefly on English Renaissance buildings erected during 
the reigns of the Georges — hence the term Georgian Colonial. But 
toward the end of that century, with the termination of hostilities 
between England and ourselves, there developed a growing spirit or 
independence in artistic as well as political matters, and with it there 
appeared a new tendency in architectural thought and design. 

The Federal or Early Republican style, as it is now called, dating 
roughly from about 1790 to 1840, was not, however, a sharp break 
with tradition. It remained basically classic in conception, as was its 
predecessor the Georgian Colonial, stressing fine proportion, sim- 
plicity of massing, studied relationship of openings, symmetry, and 
refined ornamentation. In the last area it diff^ered rather strikingly from 
the full-blown Georgian Colonial of the mid-years of the eighteenth 
century, which tended to use pronounced embellishments and append- 
ages. Another tendency of the Federal architect was to escape some- 
what from the rigid restrictions of the true Georgian Colonial by 
adding, at times, such features as a single unbalanced wing, an ellip- 
tical wall, curvilinear elements inside the building as well as out, and, 
in general, an attenuated delicacy. 

Hence, the Federal architectural movement appears to us today 
as one with rather mixed interests and aesthetic conflicts. We detect 
a basic tendency to retain much of the traditional Colonial while being 
aware, at the same time, of a striving for freedom of expression. 
Coupled with this was a growing interest in ancient Roman architec- 
ture, stimulated by the tendency of our forefathers of the late eight- 
eenth and early nineteenth centuries to identify republican virtues 
with Rome. 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

There is a marked consistency of plan and elevation among Federal 
houses, even if their general aspects seem varied at first glance. They 
are oblong structures, usually with central halls, gabled or hipped 
roofs, and single or paired chimneys. Exterior ornamentation is reduced 
to a minimum. Cornices are seldom decorated; eaves barely extend 
beyond outside walls; windows, usually recessed, are rarely framed; 
small porticoes are not uncommon, although most houses of the 
period provide no shelter over entrances. Doorways are in most in- 
stances the principal decorative feature, but even these are generally 
sedate, if not stark, in their lack of embellishment. 

The most common Federal houses of this region are simple rec- 
tangular blocks, two stories high, three or five openings across each 
story of the front, with low-pitched gable roofs. A second popular 
form was the same oblong mass with a hip roof. Into the latter cate- 
gory fall the two earliest residences of architectural distinction in the 
state, the William Henry Harrison mansion at Vincennes, completed 
about 1804, and the Samuel C.Vance house at Lawrenceburg, later 
owned by Omer Tousey, dating from 1818. The Jeremiah Sullivan 
house at Madison, of approximately the same date as the Vance- 
Tousey house, will be discussed later, since it represents a slightly dif- 
ferent type of Federal domestic architeaure. 

The Harrison mansion, "Grouseland," is strongly reminiscent of 
its Colonial predecessors. It has an air of distinction without being 
pompous. Its fine proportions, pleasing scale, and satisfying pattern of 
openings show that it was thoughtfully designed, perhaps by Harrison 
himself. Entrance porticoes at the south and west sides are severely 
plain, in keeping with the taste of the period; and an elliptical north 
wall, not seen in the photograph, is a reflection of the new Federal 
tendency to use curvilinear forms, and is perhaps its most striking Fed- 
eral feature. The elliptical arch that spans the hall is in the same 
spirit. A circular fanlight over the door reflects a lingering taste for 
that particular Georgian element. 
Plate i The Vance-Tousey house effectively represents a modified version 

of the style, and better than any other dwelling in the state typifies the 
Federal mode. Its marked Adamesque effect seems to confirm the tradi- 
I O tion that plans for it came from England, although this would not 

The Federal Mode 

have to be the case since American architects in the East were designing 
similar houses. Its distinctive features are its hip roof and a classic 
pediment on the long or longitudinal side placed on line with eaves and 
cornice, and supported by a slightly projeaing bay or pavilion. A well- 
proportioned Palladian window on the second story and an unusually 
handsome door on the first combine with the pediment to give the 
house a chaste and stately classic bearing. It is composed of a central 
block and two wings, the latter being lower than the main unit. The 
wings extend toward the street(thephotographshows the river front), 
thus flanking the entrance court. This makes the house a good ex- 
ample of the American interpretation of the Roman Country House 
type of Palladio. In addition, the recessed window panels in the wings 
reveal again the interest in round arches, stemming, perhaps, from 
earlier examples by Latrobe and Bulfinch in the East. 

Other hip-roof examples, not illustrated in this book, are the 
Armstrong-BrindleyhomeinVevay and the Merit-Tandy house north 
of Patriot, in Switzerland County. The former, with attractive propor- 
tions and pleasing arrangement of windows and with a door that is more 
Greek Revival than Federal, has lost much of its effectiveness because 
of the recently added porch. 

While the hip-roof design is not unusual for two-storied houses, 
it is seldom found in connection with one-floor cottages of the Federal 
era. One of the few examples in our state is the Merit-Tandy house 
near Patriot now occupied by B. O. Hutcherson. Its general effect is 
that of a European rural homestead rather than American. 

Returning to the oblong, gable-roof type, we find that by far the 
largest number of early houses in the state. Federal and Greek Revival, 
belong to this family. Their sober severity is emphasized by the ab- 
sence today of shutters, in many cases, and by the relatively narrow 
doorways, as for example in the Floyd-Hendricks-Grifhn home at 
Corydon and the Levi Coffin house at Fountain City, now owned by 
Mrs. Nola B. Foreman. The absence of exterior enrichment is evi- 
dent. Their appeal stems almost entirely from good proportions and 
the relationship of openings and plain wall surfaces. 

The McKee-Powell- White house at Madison has a chaste beauty, /';,?; ;; 

too, but its more decorative doorway and the presence of shutters on II 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 


the windows soften an otherwise stark countenance. The doorway, a 
recent reconstruction, is more characteristic of Greek Revival en- 
trances, with square pilasters or antae coupled with intermediate col- 
umns supporting an entablature-Hke lintel. Within this appears the 
door framed with side lights and glazed transom. The recessed panels 
under the first floor windows, with ornamental iron grilles, are also 
relatively new additions. 

Suggesting more warmth and hospitality, perhaps — and certainly 
with more of the grace and refinement of the eighteenth century — is 

Plate 6 the Allison-Hyatt house in Madison, now owned by Historic Madi- 

son, Inc. Its large windows (those of the first story reaching to the 
floor) and its pleasing proportions help to give this efl^ect. The en- 
trance here is modest. The hood over the door, supported by consoles, 
is a later addition. Attention should be called to the different treat- 
ments of roofs in these two buildings. That of the McKee-Powell- 
White house has an end wall with coping or fractable carried above 
the roof, while that of the Allison-Hyatt house projeas slightly be- 
yond the gable end. In both instances the chimneys are incorporated 
into the end walls. Both treatments of end walls are found on Federal 
houses, as are paired chimneys and stepped gables which will be ex- 
A, Fractable amined later. 

The last four homes discussed above have extensions toward the 
back, forming an L with the front unit, usually with two-storied 
porches or galleries facing the gardens. While not exclusively a Fed- 
eral tendency in house designing, this plan was prevalent in Indiana 
around the turn of the century and seems to derive from its popu- 
larity among Kentucky builders. This is borne out by the fact that 
most of the Indiana examples are found on or near the Ohio River. 

Plate 7 This L-plan is effectively carried out in the Robinson-Schofield 

house, across the street from the Allison-Hyatt residence at Madi- 
son. Its stark simplicity is due to the absence of cornice moldings 
and to unframed windows, framing being unnecessary because of 
deeply set window sashes. A slight yielding to refinement and charm 
is seen in the recessed semicircular arches over windows and doors 
facing Second Street. The rhythm of openings is unusual in that they 
are even in number instead of odd (four across the front and six along 

The Federal Mode 

the side) and may in this case represent a conscious effort to avoid 
rigid symmetry. The house was reportedly built in 1817. It may orig- 
inally have been a combination home and store. However, it has been 
maintained as a private residence for many years. The Grand Lodge 
of Indiana was organized here in 1818. 

Many stately examples of the sober, plain expression of the Federal 
style are still standing in the state, built for the most part during the 
1820's and i83o's. Driving down the Whitewater Valley, along the 
Ohio River and its tributaries, and through most of the state's oldest 
towns, one's attention is repeatedly drawn to these veterans of the first 
decades of Indiana's history. Built of brick as a rule, sometimes painted 
white, they stand like lonely sentinels on farms or squeezed between 
modern business blocks in towns. Frame houses of the type are not 
infrequently seen; and in certain sections of the state it is not unusual 
to find them of stone construction. Many have been modified by later 
additions, periodic remodeling programs, or by attaching porches and 
large Roman porticoes to their otherwise modest fronts. 

Among the notable examples still to be found are the Williams- 
Butler house in Brookville, with a recently added circular porch; the 
John Coulter and James O'Hair homes in Laurel, unusual in the 
extension of their roofs; the old stone houses at Oldenburg and 
Cannelton; the John Ewbank house at Guilford; the John Paul 
house at St. Paul; the Bezaleel Maxwell house near Hanover, with its 
later porch; the Conrad homestead on old New Haven Road, near 
Fort Wayne; the Pat e-Gompf house at the west edge of Lawrenceburg; 
the Thomas Posey house at Corydon, with remodeled door; and the 
Julia L. Dumont house at Vevay. In Vevay, too, one sees the Lucie 
Detraz or "Roxy" house, scene of the novel by that name by Edward 
Eggleston, and other similar houses. 

Modifications of this standard type of Federal house (oblong, two 
stories high, low gable roof) are not unusual, as carpenters, brick- 
layers, and clients drew up plans to meet particular needs and tastes. 
The Goudie-Moore brick residence east of Brookville is closely related 
in design to the Vance-Tousey house at Lawrenceburg, although it 
has a gable instead of a hip roof. A pediment interrupts the cornice 
along the front, adding interest to the facade; a flat-headed triple 


John Coulter House 

Plate 8 


Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

window is centered under the pediment; and below, the well-designed 
entrance is capped by an elHptical panel which takes the place of a fan- 
light. The strong, clearly delineated pediment, with wide boards 
accentuating its triangle, is more in the spirit of the Greek Revival, 
as is the entablature under the eaves. Like several other houses, it stands 
between the Federal and Grecian, taking elements from both. 

Another example of the modified Federal style is the Bookwalter- 
Lordan house south of Rob Roy, built of grayish-tan stone with darker 
brown stone blocks used as lintels. The use of stone blocks or quoins 
on the corners is unusual for Federal houses, and represents a rever- 
sion to the earlier Georgian Colonial taste — another example of the 
persistence of a lingering tradition. Windows here are exceptionally 
large in scale, compared with most houses mentioned above, and their 
proportions more nearly approach a square. This, too, is a late Federal 
example, built in the 1840's, when the Greek Revival movement was 
at the height of popularity. 

The small Federal town residences of the gable-roof type, with 
three windows across the front and usually two stories high, tend to be, 
like their larger brothers, severely plain. Among the best examples 
from the standpoint of architectural design is the Mills-Gregg frame 
house at Crawfordsville, with its elliptical over-door fanlight, and the 
Stout-Brown country house, west of Bloomington, built of stone. The 
windows of the latter are capped with cut stone blocks in keeping 
with the treatment of windows during the English Renaissance and 
Georgian Colonial eras. 

The Ames-Paton one-storied country cottage west of La Porte is 
exceptional in that it has a single chimney placed in the center of the 
roof — a feature not imusual in New England in the eighteenth and 
early nineteenth centuries, but rare in this part of the country. It is 
surprising to learn that it was built as late as 1842. 

When passing tlirough Centerville, one's attention is drawn to 
rows of attached houses that stand in quiet dignity flush with the side- 
walks. They are similar to Federal houses in eastern cities, and 
although built in what was originally open country, they reflect the 
nostalgia of the builders for the kind of urban living which they had 
I A. left behind and a desire for quiet and sheltered back yards and gardens 

The Federal Mode 

as opposed to front lawns. Probably the most attractive of the series is 
the Lantz-MuUigan-Boyd house which, on account of its door, win- 
dow hntels, and wide fascia board under the eaves, is as much in the 
spirit of the Greek Revival trend as in that of the Federal. The treat- 
ment of the gable, however, is characteristically the latter with the 
coping following the slopes of the roof, as was seen on the McKee- 
Powell-White house at Madison (Plate 5). 

Variations in the Federal family came about in a number of ways, 
so far as their outward appearances are concerned: by enlarging and 
pairing the chimneys, by the use of stepped gables, and by adding 
porticoes or galleries on the fronts. Chimneys in pairs, joined by a 
deck and built flush with the end walls, are not specifically Federal 
features — nor are stepped gables. They are typical of many houses 
built in the eastern and New England states prior to the War of 
Independence, and their use in the Middle West after 1800 reflected 
a lingering sentiment for things back East. 

The Federal gable-roof house, such as the ones discussed above, 
assumes quite a diff^erent aspect when large paired chimneys are used. 
Even the small two-storied urban dwelling, such as the Jeremiah Pl>!tc 14 

Sullivan house, Madison, seems to impart an air of stateliness with 
paired chimneys at one end. Other elements help, of course, in giving 
it charm, such as pleasing proportions, intimate scale, and an ex- 
ceptionally beautiful door. Its lawn, like those of many houses built 
flush with the sidewalk, is in the rear, while a wing with a two-storied 
gallery on its east face extends into the back yard. 

Closely related in design is the Wylie-Hershey brick house in T' '1 '^ 

Bloomington, with sturdy paired chimneys at the west end and a 
lower addition extending toward the right. Similar houses, but having 
paired chimneys at both ends, are the Dunihue-Short house in Bed- 
ford and the Wilber-Peterson house on Laughery Creek near Hartford 
(Ohio County), the latter with its door in the center shielded by a 
small square-piered portico. 

Many of the paired-chimney examples found in different parts of 
the state are larger buildings with five instead of three windows across 
the front. Among the most imposing of these is the Roberts-Morton 
mansion east of Newburgh. Built of stone and standing on a bluff I K 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

overlooking the Ohio River, it makes an impressive picture at all 
times of year. The windows are framed in smooth stone; and in front 
of the severe, circular-arched door stands a two-storied portico with 
square piers (a recent reconstruction or addition). 

Other examples of this general type of structure are the old James 
Welsh house in Vevay, the old Michael Malott house in Bedford (now 
the police station), the Widow Thompson residence on East Wayne 
Street, Fort Wayne, the Zulauf-Stoner home in Jeffersonville, and the 
large brick residence at Chesterfield, now owned by George Hardy. 

There is another house belonging to this architectural family 
Plate 1 which deserves special mention, the Isaac Elston home in Crawfords- 

ville, not only because of its exceptionally good design but on account 
of certain peculiarities. Two features that are not typical of houses of 
this period will be noticed by the careful observer: the dormers in the 
roof and the central window on the front which is located between 
the two stories. The former were added recently to the roof (dormers 
had gone out of fashion by 1800). The latter is accounted for by the 
fact that what is now the front of the house was originally the rear, 
and the window on the stair landing is now above the principal en- 
trance facing Pike Street. 

Some of the large paired-chimney homesteads were given added 
magnificence by attaching a classic portico to their fronts. A good 
Plate 1 example is the Speakman-Tallentire-Johnson house on the Ohio River 

near Rising Sun. The balustraded deck on the ridge of the roof is 
appropriate and functional here because it commands a splendid view 
of the river. The difficulty of placing some buildings in clear-cut cate- 
gories is seen in the case of this house. The main block is a brick 
paired-chimney type of Federal origin, but the two-storied portico is 
Greek Revival in spirit. It is possible that the portico was a later addi- 
Plate 1 tion. The same is true of the Howland-Goodwin-Strohmier home at 

Brookville. Its semicircular portico of attenuated Ionic columns is of 
recent date, although the house itself is said to have originated in the 
1850's. The second story was also added later. 

Another unusual example of this paired-chimney type is the large 

Plate 20 Grisamore-Tyler house in Jeffersonville, a double residence with three 

I D sturdy Doric columns forming the portico and framing a recessed en- 


The Federal Mode 

trance. Twin doors with well-designed elliptical fanlights and narrow 
side lights are seen below iron balconies that serve similar doors on the 
second floor. Its large pediment, supported by this trio of columns, 
contains a large elliptical window (having the same arc as the fanlights) 
and is given additional interest by a brick dentil mold which follows 
the line of the cornice across the facade. The original small window 
panes have been replaced recently by large sheets of glass. 

Houses with stepped gables are less numerous in the state than 
those with paired chimneys. This corbiestep or crow-stepped end 
wall, a throw-back to early Flemish and Jacobean buildings, is found 
on houses of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in our eastern , - ^ 

states, but seems to have lost its popularity as the Georgian Colonial ( 1 

style reached its full maturity. It must not be regarded as a typical 
architectural device of the Federal period but rather as an anachronistic 
or abnormal feature when it appears after 1800. 

The Gramelspacher-Gutzweiler house in Jasper is the most im- Plate 21 

posing representative of this class in Indiana. The number of corbie- 
steps (they are usually larger and fewer), the well-defined windows 
with painted frames, and the circular-arched door combine to give the 
house a strong, rather noble character. 

A smaller home, built of stone and having a pronounced flat- 
roofed portico on the front, is the Lackey-Rariden house in Cambridge 
City. This portico is so imposing with its heavy parapet that the step 
gables are dwarfed beside it. More individual in design is the Richard 
Tyner house in Brookville, where the stepped-gable end serves as the 
entrance front, hiding the shallow curb roof. The width of the facade 
is almost twice its height, making the house appear rather squatty. 
Neither of these homes is pictured here. 

A fourth type of Federal house is the one with a gallery or long 
porch across the front. Perhaps it is incorrect to designate this as a 
Federal or New Republican type because it goes back, in point of 
time, much farther. In fact, in its plainest expression it has no marked 
stylistic characteristics and might well belong to any time and place. 
When most simple in design, one might call it folk construction in 
contrast to sophisticated architecture. 

The most humble member of this clan is the one-storied log or ly 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

frame cabin with a down-sweeping roof that extends over the front 
porch. According to descriptions, the homes of early French settlers 
at Vincennes and elsewhere were of this design. A few are still stand- 
ing in the state that date from the first decades of the nineteenth 
century, one of the most interesting being the O'Neill place west of 
Shelburn, now owned by James Noel — an old log house covered with 
siding (not illustrated). A more elongated example with low-pitched 
roof and additions at the ends, is the Dufour-Andrew house at Vevay. 
A larger and more imposing veteran is the Hamer-Bridwell home- 
stead at Avoca, northwest of Bedford (not illustrated). 

A two-storied porch of recent construction, with slender square 
posts, gives an air of simple dignity to the Conner-Lilly house south 
of Noblesville even if it is a recent addition. It is on the west or river 
front (it faces the White River), the front on the road having a one- 
storied entrance porch of modest design. 

The house most reminiscent of southern American houses is 
p . the Dewees-Preston-Smith house at Terre Haute. Major George W. 

Dewees, having come to Terre Haute from the South in the middle 
1820's, built his new home with a high basement, like many southern 
houses, the family's living quarters being placed on the upper level. 
The long front porch is reached by a flight of steps from the lawn, 
and a similar porch, extending the length of the building, is at the 
back. Undressed stone was used for the ends of the house. 

A good example of a two-storied gallery is that of the Witt- 
j Myers house at Dublin. Examples of this type are not common in this 

area, especially where the gallery faces the street. Most of the two- 
storied porches on houses in southern Indiana face the river. An un- 
usual feature of the Witt gallery is the brick walls or screens at the 
ends of the porches which are extensions of the end walls of the house. 
These extend out to the porch railings, and they have windows pierc- 
ing them on both levels. 

The most imposing and stately of the porch type is the Smith- 
Huston mansion, now a Masonic Home, south of Connersville. The 
central unit, which is the original, is very classic in feeling. The porch, 
perhaps a later addition, is a fine example of the colonnade entabla- 
I o ture style of ancient Roman buildings. This two-storied, flat-roofed 

The Federal Mode 

porch became a popular feature in the southern states during the late 
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Mount Vernon is a good 
example), but there are relatively few in this region. Designating 
this mansion as a Federal type may be questioned. It might just as 
logically be classified as a Roman Revival example with its strong 
classic flavor and traditional Roman Doric columns. 

The old Judge William Niblack residence at Vincennes, now 
owned by the American Legion, is another impressive member of this 
flat-roof portico group. It occupies the site of the original Knox 
County Courthouse. 

Interiors of Federal Houses 

Interiors of Federal houses show a strong inclination toward 
restraint and simplicity when compared with their Georgian Colonial 
predecessors. Walls were usually painted in light tints; wallpaper was 
often used in halls and bedrooms, sedately designed with motifs based 
on classic ornament; paneled walls were exceptional. Moldings were 
narrow, in contrast to earlier and later styles, and those used for 
framing doors and windows were delicately reeded or grooved; square 
blocks at the corners where lintels and jambs met contained stylized 
flowers or concentric circular grooves (Plate 19). Low wainscoting or 
chair rails appeared in halls and sometimes in dining rooms. Wood- 
work was invariably painted white. 

The principal decorative feature was the fireplace, which was 
framed in wood delicately carved and painted (Plate 5). Designs for 
mantelpieces were basically Adamesque, although original patterns 
were often carried out by local carpenters in the same spirit. Stairways, 
too, were constructed to convey an impression of lightness: railings 
were graceful, with frail balusters (square or round), and handrails 
terminated on slender nonbulbous newel posts (Plate 17). 

Interior furnishings showed a decided inclination on the part of 
householders to achieve an effect of delicate elegance. Heavy rococo 
Chippendale (or quasi-Chippendale) furniture was replaced by the 
more refined pieces designed by, or in the manner of, Hepplewhite 
and Sheraton. 


I Lester H'. Routt 

HARRISON HOUSE, "Grouseland." Vincennes, Knox Counry. 

William Henry Harrison original owner, Francis Vigo Chapter, Daughters of the American 

Revolution, present owner. Federal st)-le, 1803-4. Probably designed by Harrison. (Page 10) 

VANCE-TOUSEY HOUSE. 504 W. High Street, Lawrenceburg, Dearborn County. 

Samuel C. Vance original owner, Omer Tousey later owner, 

Quaker Oats Company present owner. Federal style, 1818. (Pages lo-u) 



FLOYD-HENDRICKS-GRIFFIN HOUSE. 202 E. Walnuc Street, Corydon, Harrison County. 
Davis Floyd original owner, William Hendricks and William A. Porter later owners, 
Daniel P. Griffin present owner. Federal style, 1817. Milo Davis builder. (Page 11) 

COFFIN-FOREMAN HOUSE. 115 Highway 27, Fountain City, Wayne County. 

Levi Coffin original owner, Mrs. Nola B. Foreman present owner. 

Federal style, 1827. John Wright Johnson brick mason and carpenter-builder. (Page 11) 


McKEE-POWELL-WHITE HOUSE. 428 Mulberry Street, Madison, JefFerson County. 
James McKee original owner, Mrs. Edward Powell later owner, Leslie O. White present owner. 
Federal style, 1832. Mathew Temperly and sons architects. (Pages II-12) 

ALLISON-HYATT HOUSE. 301 W. Second Street, Madison, Jefferson County. 

James Y. Allison original owner, Benjamin C. Hyatt later owner, 

Historic Madison, Inc., present owner. Federal style, 1815; additions, 1840's. (Page 12) 


ROBINSON-SCHOFIELD HOUSE. 223 W. Second Street, Madison, Jefferson County. 
Thomas Robinson original owner, Mrs. William P. Schofield present owner. 
Federal style, 1817. (Pages 12-13) 


GOUDIE-MOORE HOUSE. State Highway 252 east of BrookviUe, Franklm County. 
Samuel Goudie original owner, Henry Moore present owner. 
Federal-Greek Revival, 1843. (Pages 13-14) 


BOOKWALTER-LORDAN HOUSE. U.S. 41 south of Rob Roy, Fountain County. 
John W. Bookwalcer original owner, Mrs. A. M. Lordan present owner. 
Federal style, 1840. (Page 14) 


MILLS-GREGG HOUSE. 2 Mills Place, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County. 

Caleb Mills original owner, Orpheus M. Gregg later owner, Wabash College present owner. 

Federal style, 1837-38. (Page 14) 

T ^"iiitiifi X X 

STOUT-BROWN HOUSE. Maplegrove Road off State Highway 46 west of Bloomington, 
Monroe County. Daniel Stout original owner, Hubert A. Brown present owner. 
Federal style, 1828. Daniel Stout architect-builder. (Page 14) 

AMES-PATON HOUSE. Waverly Road west of La Porte, La Porte County. 
Charles Ames original owner, Maurice E. Paton present owner. 
Federal style, 1842. fPage 14) 

Maurice E. Paton 



LANTZ-MULLIGAN-BOYD HOUSE. 214 W. Mam Street, Centerville, Wayne County. 
Daniel Lantz original owner, Walter Mulligan later owner, George Boyd present owner. 
Federal style, 1835. (Page 15) 

JEREMIAH SULLIVAN HOUSE. 304 W. Second Street, Madison, JefFerson County. 

Jeremiah Sullivan original owner, Mrs. William J. Gibbs later owner, Historic Madison, Inc., present owner. 

Federal style, 1818. (Page 15) 

WYLIE-HERSHEY HOUSE. 307 E. Second Street, Bloomington, Monroe County. 
Andrew Wylie original owner, Amos Hershey later owner, Indiana University present owner. 
Federal style, 1835. (Page 15) 

ROBERTS-MORTON HOUSE. State Highway 662 east of Newburgh, Warrick County. 
Gaines H. Roberts original owner, Thomas J. Morton, Jr., present owner. 
Federal style, 1834. John Memhardt contractor. (Pages 15-16) 

B. J. Scott 


ELSTON HOUSE. 400 E. Pike Street, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County. 
Isaac Compton Elston original owner, Isaac C. Elston, Jr., present owner. 
Federal style, 1835. (Page 16) 


SPEAK MAN-TALLENTIRE-JOHNSON HOUSE. State Highway 56 north of Rising Sun, Ohio County. 
Stephen S. Speakman original owner, Thomas L. Tallentire later owner, 
Mrs. William Walker Johnson present owner. Federal style, 1846. (Page 16) 





— <M||^MM(M 

r^ » 


Typical Federal-style doors, 
Taylor- May House, Madison 

HOWLAND-GOODWIN-STROHMIER HOUSE. 813 Main Street, Brookville, Franklin County. 
John D. Howland original owner, John R. Goodwin later owner, Elmer Strohmier present owner. 
Federal style, 1852-59. (Page 16) 

ORIS A MORE-TYLER HOUSE. Double, 111-113 W. Chestnut Street, JeflFersonville, Clark County. 
David Grisamore and brother original owners; Earl T.Tyler, Sr., Mae Tyler, and Mrs. Maude 
Tyler Nieland present owners of west side, and Mrs. Bessie Fonda, Mrs. Jennie Rankin Spencer, 
and Mrs. Catherine Cross present owners of east side. Federal style, 1837 (Pages 16-17) 



GRAMELSPACHER-GUTZWEILER HOUSE. Seventh and Main streets, Jasper, Dubois County. 
Joseph Gramelspacher original owner, Flonan Gutzweiler present owner. 
Federal style, 1849. Tage 17} 

DUFOUR-ANDREW HOUSE. State Highway 156 east of Vevay, Switzerland County. 
John David Dufour original owner, Clair C. Andrew present owner. 
Federal st}-le, 1826. (Page 18) 


Induwupolis Times 


State Highway 37A south of Noblesville, Hamilton County, 
WilHam Conner original owner, Eli Lilly present owner. 
Federal style, 1823. (Page 1 

DEWEES-PRESTON-SMITH HOUSE. 1339 Poplar Street, Terre Haute, Vigo County. 

George W. Dewees original owner, Nathaniel Preston later owner, Mrs. E. V. Smith present owner. 

Federal style, c. 1830. (Page 18) 


WITT-MYERS HOUSE. Spring and Foundry streets, Dublin, Wayne County. 
Caleb Witt original owTier, Mrs. R. C. Myers present owner. 
Federal style, 1836. (Page 18) 


SMITH-HUSTON HOUSE. State Highway 121 south of Connersville, Fayette County. 
Oliver H. Smith original owner, James Huston later owner, now a Masonic Home. 
Federal style, first unit, 1831. (Pages 18-19) 

ellis-la plante house. 

Ill N. Second Street, Vincennes, Knox County. 

Abner T. Ellis original owner, Peter La Plante 

later owner. Harmony Society present owner. 

Classic Revival, 1830. (Page 37) 


Corner of Second and Elm Streets, 
Madison, Jefferson County. 
James F. D. Lanier original owner, 
Mr. and Mrs. Edward H. Jeffery 
present owners. 
Classic Revival, 1832-37. (Page 38) 








KINTNER-WITHERS HOUSE, "Cedar Farm." South of Laconia, Harrison County. 
Jacob L. Kintner original owner, Mrs. Julia K. Withers present owner. 
Classic Revival, 1837. (Page 38) 

Bob Brant 

Frank Hohenberger 

CANAL HOUSE, iii E. Fourth Street, 

Connersville, Fayette County. 

White Water Valley Canal Company original 

owner, the Savings Bank of Indiana, 

Mrs. Porter Vance Hanson, and 

Finly Gray later owners, 

Veterans of Foreign Wars present owner. 

Greek Revival, 1842. (Page 41) 



loi N. Third Street, Goshen, Elkhart County. 

George Rowell original owner, 

Mrs. Gertrude Champion present owner. 

Greek Revival, 1847. (Pages 41-42) 


STOCKWELL-GEIGER HOUSE. 637 Columbia Street, Lafayette, 

Tippecanoe Count)'. Nathan Stockwell original owner, Frederick Geiger later owner, 

now First Church of Clirist Scientist. Greek Revival, c. 1840. (Page 42) 


The Neo-Classic Mode 
Roman and Greek Revivals 


TENDENCIES to adhere to Renaissance principles, as wit- 
nessed in the Georgian Colonial and Federal movements, led 
-- architects to look still further back in point of time and 

examine the fountainheads of classicism: Greece and Rome. Thomas 
Jefferson was largely responsible for the Roman Revival movement in 
this country. He had studied Palladio's works (drawings and descrip- 
tions of Roman buildings) and later observed firsthand ancient classi- 
cal edifices in Europe. He was thus singularly prepared, when he saw 
"a favorable opportunity of introducing into the state [Virginia] an 
example of architecture in the classic style of antiquity," to draw up 
plans for the new state capitol at Richmond. This was not only the 
first pure classic temple-type building in America (1789), but it ante- 
dated by several years any similar revivals in Europe. 

Most of the buildings erected in this style were for governmental 
and academic purposes. Private dwellings during the first decades of 
the nineteenth century were basically post-Colonial or Federal in 
design, probably because the Roman idiom appeared too official and 
seemed more appropriate for large public structures than for intimate 
family living. A few homes, however, are to be seen in the East and 
Midwest based on the Roman temple type, the three principal ones in 
Indiana being the Ellis-La Plante mansion at Vincermes, the Lanier- 
Jeffery residence at Madison, and the large Kintner-Withers home 
overlooking the Ohio River south of Laconia in Harrison County. 
The first was built in 1830, the last in 1837, and the second some- 
time during the years between. 

The Ellis-La Plante house has retained its original character to the 
present day, except for additions to the sides and the discoloration and 
some weathering of the columns. The latter, pure Roman Doric or 
Tuscan and composed of stone drums, support a well-designed entab- 

V > 

=*> = 

f 1 

Plate 27 


Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

Plate 28 

Plate 2g 


lature and pediment. The semicircular window in the pediment is also 
in the Roman tradition. 

. The Lanier-JefFery residence is of wood construction rather than 
brick. The slender, widely spaced columns and relatively steep-pitched 
roof (steeper than that on the Ellis house) combine to give the build- 
ing a lighter, less substantial character. The opening in the pediment 
is an unusual adaptation of the three-part Palladian window, the 
central section having an angular arch that repeats the sloping lines of 
the roof. This was the home of James F. D. Lanier before he built 
his more imposing mansion shown in plates 73 and 74. 

"Cedar Farm," the Kintner- Withers stately mansion, command- 
ing a fine view of the river, has a sturdier portico of four large Roman 
Doric columns, wide entablature, and well-proportioned pediment 
pierced by a semicircular window. The second-story porch within the 
portico is cantilevered, standing free from the columns in front of it. 
The entrance facing the road (not seen in the picture) does not have a 
columned portico like that of the river front, but has a two-storied 
recessed porch, less imposing but equally handsome. 

Hard on the heels of the Roman Revival came the Greek. Senti- 
ment for things Grecian, stimulated by architectural handbooks repro- 
ducing details and elevations of buildings and extolling the merits of 
the new trend, was given additional impetus by the Greek war of 
independence and America's sympathetic attitude toward a nation 
struggling to free itself from political bondage. As Greek architec- 
ture was notably more austere and stocky in its general aspect and 
more severe in design than the Roman, so the exponents of the 
Greek Revival idiom strove to produce buildings that reflected these 
characteristics. Symmetry, good proportion, and classic details were 
already a major part of the architectural vocabulary, as we have seen. 
It only remained to put greater emphasis on sturdy simplicity and 
greater refinement. 

First, an attempt was made to build small Doric temples of wood 
or brick, as in the case of Roman Revival residences, with the hope 
that our American families would adapt their living habits to the rec- 
tangular spaces within "cella" walls. Temple porticoes became front 
porches. Circular columns supporting low-pitched pediments often 


The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals 

gave way to square piers since the latter were more easily fabricated 
out of wooden planks. 

As the original Greek system of construction was a relatively sim- 
ple one, based on the column and lintel and without the intricacies of 
arch or vault, it appealed strongly to the American carpenter-builder 
and the brick mason. When the oblong mass of the house was of brick 
construction, the portico and outside trim were inevitably of wood. 

It should be mentioned here that the master carpenters and masons 
who were responsible for most of these houses in the Middle West 
got their information about Roman and Greek architectural orders 
and ornament indirectly. Few of them had access to good reproduc- 
tions of antique structures and none, so far as we know, had had an 
opportunity to see the originals. What they used were architectural 
guidebooks or builders' manuals written and published by architects 
of England and the eastern United States, with plans and elevations of 
dwellings to suit any taste and pocketbook. John Haviland's Builder's 
Assistant, the first American publication of the kind, appeared in 
1818; and soon after came books by Asher Benjamin, John Hall, 
Minard Lefever and others. 

One of the leading architects of America, Ithiel Town, an enthusi- 
astic practitioner in the new Grecian movement, submitted the win- 
ning design for Indiana's first statehouse in the competition held in 
1831. It was an imposing Greek peristyle temple, in the best Doric 
tradition, and remarkably authentic in proportion and decoration 
except for the addition of a circular cupola on the roof. At the same 
time, and for the next decade, all of the new residences, churches, and 
banks built in Indianapolis were Greek Revival in style, but the rapid 
growth in population and the inevitable changes in taste caused all of 
these to be razed in our Capitol city, as well as in nearly all other 
large Indiana towns. 

Although this survey of Indiana architecture is limited to domes- 
tic buildings, mention should be made of the few remaining public 
edifices in the state designed in the Greek Revival idiom. These in- 
clude the Ohio County Courthouse at Rising Sun, the old State Bank 
(now headquarters of the Red Cross) at New Albany, and the old 
courthouse at Terre Haute, now the home of the Sons of the Ameri- 

OJd Roberts Park Church 


Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

A, Pediment 

B, Frieze: Triglyphs and Metopes 

C, Architrave 

B + C, Entablature 

D, Capital [Doric) 

E, Column 


can Revolution. Perhaps the most stately of the Classic Revival public 
buildings in Indiana, antedating the Civil War, are the Orange County 
Courthouse at Paoli, completed in 1S50, and the Jefferson County 
Courthouse at Madison, built in 1854. 

At this point it might be well to mention the principal features of 
American Greek Revival design as compared with the Federal. In 
keeping with the old Greek ideal, columns, when used, were stocky, 
supporting a wide entablature which, in turn, supported the pediment. 
The thickset columns, which were preferred but not always present, 
were generally reflections of the Greek Doric order. Ionic and Corin- 
thian columns were also used, particularly for more ostentatious 
houses and civic buildings. 

The roof was lower in pitch, or less steep, than that of most 
Federal and Roman Revival buildings, and kept as inconspicuous as 
possible. No dormers marred its chasteness; chimneys were unobtru- 
sive; the gable end of the roof came to be regarded as a major element 
since it was the equivalent of the Greek pediment. The wide entabla- 
ture board under the eaves, another identifying feature, extended the 
full length of the houses, as well as across the ends, simulating its 
ancient prototypes by being divided, in many cases, into two bands 
— the frieze and the architrave. In most instances this entablature 
board did not go all the way across the ends of houses but stopped 
after extending a foot or two around the corner, breaking, so to speak, 
the base or cornice of the pediment. But even in those cases the pedi- 
ment was often emphasized by wide boards in the angle of the gable. 

If columns were not used, pilasters often appeared on the corners 
of houses and at intervals along the sides or across the gable ends. 
The inset panels thus formed contained windows and doors. This 
was especially true of brick buildings. Frame residences in the best of 
the carpenters' Grecian examples also showed vertical boards at the 
corners. Entrances became austere, rectangular, and rather massive. 
Fanlights gave way to rectangular transoms. Small columns flanked 
entrance doors in the costlier houses; and not infrequently the 
entrances were recessed, thus eliminating porticoes or porches. 
Windows were usually framed in a stark manner with either a 
simple block on top or a wide lintel repeating the entablature. 

The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals 

The figures here in the margin suggest the basic compositional 
types in this general Greek Revival family. The first is the temple 
type with front portico. The second is a close relative but without 
columns: this use of the gable end of the house as the front became 
generally accepted during the Greek Revival era, whereas it was not 
widespread during preceding periods. The third has a temple-type 
central unit (with or without columnar portico) with one or two low 
lateral wings. Another type is the oblong mass type, with its entrance 
on the side, not unlike the Federal houses previously discussed 
except for lower-pitched roof, wide entablature board, and pilasters 
at corners. Related to this is the hip-roof type with Greek Revival 
elements, sometimes with a false pediment on line with the eaves, 
which is basically the same design as the Vance-Tousey house 
(Plate 2). In some cases a balustrade crowns the roof to hide its 
pitch and to emphasize horizontality. 

While the above remarks have stressed the characteristics of the 
Grecian idiom, the reader must bear in mind that many houses of the 
1830's and 1840's in this region strongly reflect Roman principles, as 
suggested earlier. Others seem to combine both so successfully that 
Classic Revival is sometimes a safer nomenclature to use. Actually 
this term is frequently employed by architectural historians as a gen- 
eral classification, incorporating both the Greek and Roman revivals 
as well as composites of the two. 

Turning now to actual examples, we find that the best-preserved 
temple-type structure in the state is the old Canal House in Conners- 
ville, now the home of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in that city. 
Authentic Greek proportions, strong pediment, wide entablature 
board clearly divided into horizontal bands (architrave and frieze), 
and fluted columns resting, without bases, on the pavement of the 
porch, are in the best antique Doric tradition. 

On the portico of the Rowell-Champion house at Goshen one 
sees a faithful reproduction of a Greek Doric frieze with its triglyphs, 
or grooved blocks, under the cornice. The pitch of the roof would 
have been too steep for the tastes of the original Athenians, but it was 
doubtless considered more practical for northern Indiana climate. The 
Doric columns are more widely spaced in the center so as not to 

101 |B| B 

Plate 30 

Plate 31 


Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

obstruct the paired doors facing the street. The porch extending half- 
way down the sides of the house as well as across the front is most 
unusual and illustrates an American version of the original Greek peri- 
style system, and is closely related to the T plan of some Classic 
Revival homes which may be seen in New England, New York state, 
and Alabama. 

Mention was made above of the common use of square, instead 
of round, columns or piers during the Greek Revival era. A good 
Plate J2 example of this is seen on the Stockwell-Geiger house, now the First 

Church of Christ Scientist, at Lafayette. The sturdy proportions here 
reflect old Grecian Doric models, as do the pronounced pediment and 
entablature. The louvered attic window, echoing the shape of the 
gable, gives emphasis to the triangular shape of the pediment. 

Large porticoes, two stories in height, were frequently attached to 
the long sides of houses better to convey the spirit of ancient classical 
architecture and to add impressiveness to the mansions. This was 
pointed out above in connection with the Speakman-Tallentire- 
Johnson home near Rising Sun (Plate i8). A similar portico, project- 
ing from the side of a gable-roofed frame building, is seen on the 
Plate ?? Billingsley-Miller country home near Hartford. The house itself 

possesses no architectural distinction but the portico is imposing, 
even if its widely spaced square columns emphasize the sheltered 
porch areas (the void) rather than their structural function. 

More often the two-storied portico on the long side of a house 

is narrow, shielding the front door and window above, leaving four 

Plate 34 windows unobstructed on either side. The Swayzee-Erlewine house 

at Marion is a notable example. This general design is not unusual 

among Federal and Classical Revival homesteads throughout the state 

— particularly in the country — but we have here one that shows 

exceptional taste in proportion and detail as well as having a strong 

Grecian flavor. It will be noticed that the columns of the portico 

are Corinthian. 

pl(,te 35 The stark simplicity of the block of the Walker-Ewing house in 

Logansport is pleasantly relieved by a graceful superimposed portico, 

the columns on the first level being Doric while those on the second 

A.X floor are Ionic. On both levels the round columns are flanked by 

The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals 

square piers (disn^le in antis). The wide, plain entablature board is 
enhanced by a dentil mold under the cornice. 

A similar portico is seen on the Hawkins-Lane homestead in Plate j6 

Crawfordsville. Here, however, we have a recently constructed porch 
with two square posts below and four Doric columns above. The 
house, chaste and sensitively designed, is L-shaped and has a low hip 
roof. It is the home of the Montgomer\' County Historical Society. 

The semicircular portico on the front of the Tripp-Cull-Johnson P/.;f. .'- 

residence at North Vernon, with the upper porch smaller than the 
lower, forms a pleasant if somewhat inconsistent adjunct to the 
house. It was added about 1900, and having been designed in the spirit 
of the late eighteenth century and attached to a mid-nineteenth-cen- 
tury house it introduced a certain incongruity of effect. 

A most unusual portico treatment is seen on the Hanna-Hayden P^ate ^S 

homestead at Fort WajTie. Two porticoes, each with three square piers, 
project toward the street with the entrance between them. Low-pitched 
pediments, wide entablature, and stocky proportions are in keeping 
with the Greek Revival spirit. This is accentuated by the Doric 
columns that support the roof of the entrance porch, by alternating 
dark and light panels in the entablature above these columns (suggest- 
ing ancient triglyphs and metopes), and by the pseudo-Greek pediment 
or blocking course over the central window. 

When builders concluded that pillared porticoes were superfluous 
or too costly, they resorted to a simple expedient. They retained the 
general effect of the classic temple front, with the gable end or pedi- 
ment facing the street, but eliminated the portico. This scheme of 
having the end of a house serve as the front was not as popular in the 
Georgian Colonial period and is seldom found among Federal build- 
ings, except in cases of row houses in some of the larger eastern cities. 
Midwesterners in the iS4o's not only became conditioned to the 
plan because of the prevalent craze for things Grecian and Roman, but 
also because it was a practical solution to the problem of placing 
houses on narrow city lots — although many are in the country. 

The large number of homes of this tv'pe built in Indiana, as well 
as in other parts of America, attests to the popularity of this scheme 
in the decades before the CivilWar. On the surface the plan would A,^ 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

seem to be limited in lending itself to varied treatments. But existing 
examples prove otherwise. 

Of the many handsome dwellings still standing in the state only a 
Plate 3g f^y^ can be singled out for analysis here. The Campbell-Banta brick 

Plate 40 residence at Crawfordsville and the Burgess-Schnelker homestead at 

New Haven in Allen County are among the most imposing. While 
in no way imitating the Greek temple, they reveal a superiority of 
design, a feeling for proportion and a sensitivity for the relationships 
of openings and wall spaces that strongly reflect classic ideals. Low- 
pitched roofs give proper angles to the pediments, the bases of which 
are only suggested by the returns of the entablature boards around 
the gable ends. Doors and windows are well proportioned, the former 
recessed and framed in keeping with the prevailing Greek Revival 
preference for modest entrances. 

Other similar designs, but with less forceful pediments, are the 
Angell-Huffman and John Lindsey houses in Fort Wayne, both on 
West Wayne Street (not illustrated). These, like the two mentioned 
above, are built of brick. A handsome veteran in wood, recently 
razed, stood facing the highway north of Mongo in La Grange 
County, with its framing of windows and doors more in keeping with 
interior trim of Greek Revival houses than exterior ornamentation, 
the lintels having "keys" that projected beyond the edges of the up- 
right jambs (see page 51 below). 

Another house in this general category, and one that effectively 

Plate 41 employs pilasters and retains a good pediment, is the Potter house at 

Lafayette. Instead of an unbroken face, the wall is marked off by four 

pilasters into three panels, within which the windows and doors are 

set. The recessed door is flanked by simple Doric columns. Another 

Plate 42 example is the Peacock-Poston home at Attica. 

Two unusual members of this family, marked by the gable end at 
Plates 4j and 44 the front, are the Wright-Monroe and the Marsh-Wesbecker cottages, 

the former west of Vevay, the latter in Madison. The Wright house 
is actually closer in design to the Federal movement than it is to the 
Greek Revival. The three-part attic window with a semicircular 
panel over the central light is a Palladian motif. Colonettes at the 
A A corners match the slender posts of the entrance porch. The woodwork 

The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals 

both inside and out was the work of shipbuilders who came from 
Nantucket, Charles B. Freeman and his son Thomas. 

The Marsh- Wesbecker house is not a typical example of Greek 
Revival expressions with possible exception of the entrance and the 
pitch of the roof. The cusped ornamental bargeboard presages the 
next movement to capture public attention, namely, the Gothic Re- 
vival, and it might well be a later addition. The Grecian pediment 
here has given way to a low-pitched medieval gable. 

Another architectural innovation that became rather common 
practice in the 1840's was the use of central temple units (with or 
without columned portico) with lateral wings. These houses, such 
as the charming Howe and Wheeler-Gould-Mosier cottages at Howe Plates 45 and 46 

and Bristol, respectively, have one-and-a-half-storied central units and 
lower extensions. The Helm-Hart house on State Road 44 east of 
Rushville and the Yoder house near Brimfield in Noble County (not 
illustrated) have two-storied porticoes on the central mass. Equally 
popular were the designs with plain gable ends, without porticoes, 
such as the Provolt-McGuire house at Rolling Prairie and the Fowler- plate 47 

Oberholtzer cottage at Bristol. The former has its entrance door in Plate 48 

the center, the wide lintel of which echoes the strong entablature board 
and the pronounced pilasters at the corners. The twin entrances to 
the Oberholtzer house are by way of the porches, to the left and right 
of the central unit. 

Most of the houses of this type are found along the northern zone 
of the state, havmg been built by settlers who moved into Indiana 
from north-central Ohio (the old Western Reserve district), bringing 
with them an affection for this particular Greek Revival design. 
Roads from Orland to Michigan City are dotted with them. Unfor- 
tunately most are in a poor state of preservation or have been so 
remodeled (and covered with modern asbestos shingles) that little 
of their original charm remains. 

The small American-Grecian cottage is a most satisfying solution 
of the problem of home designing. In addition to the type discussed 
above (central unit and wings) we find in the state many pleasing 
one-storied dwellings of wood and brick, based on the same classic 
principles as their larger cousins and growing out of equally high ^^ 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 


architectural abilities. Rectangular in plan, simple in mass, seemingly 
proud of their Hellenic ancestry as reflected in refined moldings and 
nice proportions, they stand quietly in many sections of the state. 

Plate 4g One of the most handsome is the Butler-Lewis home in Dupont, 

Jefferson County, with its graceful Doric portico attached to its long 
side. Located out of sight of the traffic on the highway, the cottage is 
not known to many people outside the village. An equally charming 

Plate 50 Grecian cottage, and one having a different personality, is the Wil- 

son-Gleason home southeast of Peru, now on the Municipal Golf 
Course. Its two small, square-pillared porches on the south and west 
sides (three pillars instead of the customary four) and its low-pitched 
hip roof terminating in a deck and parapet give it an alluring quality. 
Another, without porch or portico, but with strong, clear entabla- 

Plate 5 1 ture and pilasters, is the small Armstrong-Copeland home in Vevay. 

Still another, again relying on pilasters for exterior enhancement, is 

Plate 52 the Gray-Thompson rural home southeast of Glenwood in Fayette 

County. The last two have inviting recessed entrances, the one in 
the Fayette County home being flanked by well-proportioned Doric 
columns. The entablature board here assumes the appearance of a frieze 
with a pleasing pattern of grilles serving as attic windows. The roofs 
of both are pitched so low that they are hardly visible. 

Other examples of the small one-storied classic cottage are the 

Plate 53 Henry-Clawson house at Delphi, with its "salt-box" shape, and the 

Plate 54 Kikendall-Welling home north of Madison, chaste in its simplicity 

and restraint. 

Other notable small Greek Revival houses which deserve special 

Plate 3J5 mention are the Rapp-Maclure-Owen house at New Harmony, the 

Mills-Davis house, with its severe square-piered porch, at Crawfords- 
ville, and the Fred Purnell house in Attica, with its good recessed 
door — but with dormers which were added later. 

Returning to the subject of large two-storied houses (interrupted 
by our cons'ideration of the small Grecian cottage), we find that the 
next type of Greek Revival design to be analyzed is found in the resi- 
dence whose entrance is on its broad side. This design, always popular 
among home builders, was adopted just as frequently during the 
Greek Revival era as in previous decades. 

The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals 

The plain oblong farmhouse of the Federal period (discussed in 
the first chapter) was transformed into a pseudo-Grecian dweUing by 
the simple expedient of adding wide entablature boards, reducing the 
pitch of the roof, occasionally accenting the corners with pilasters or 
wide boards, and adding a door in keeping with the Greek Revival 
idiom. As mentioned above, the entablature board frequently stops 
after turning the corner onto the gable end. The entrances of these 
houses are often their principal decorative features: pronounced door 
frames of simple jambs and lintels, plain rectangular lights in the 
transom and at the sides, and the door itself divided into large well- 
proportioned panels. Small columns frequently flank the doors. 

One of the best preserved of this family is the Foster-Schuck pJate 56 

residence, a large white frame farmhouse northwest of Rolling Prairie. 
Its divided entablature board under the eaves and wide pilasters at 
the corners echo the ancient Doric order. Lintels over windows and 
door are bold, well designed, and consistent with the entablature. 

Although pilastered corners are lacking on the Holmes-Ausley 
residence near Fort Wayne, on Illinois Road, the strong Greek 
Revival door and wide entablature place it in the Grecian family. 
It is one of a score of stately houses throughout Indiana and the 
Middle West conforming to this general type, and which deserve 
more recognition than they are getting. 

The Vore-Hunnicutt farmhouse west of Dublin is pleasing in i-'/(7fe ^j 

design, with fairly wide entablature and typical small porch. Similar 
farmhouses are the Amick-Ward residence near Scipio, the Smith- Plate 38 

Anderson place at Perrysville, with well-defined pediments at the pjate sp 

gable ends and original porch, the McMurtrie-Rupert house east of Plate 60 

Attica, the story-and-half Rutherford home south of Liberty, the 
Fletcher-Bell house north of Lewisville, and the Boyd-Francisco place 
at Wirt (the last three not illustrated). 

Perhaps the most pretentious example of this type is the Ewing pjatc 61 

mansion in Fort Wayne. Built as late as 1854 '^^ ^^55' when affection 
for classical discipline had succumbed to a desire for the picturesque, 
it nevertheless retains the best of the Grecian elements, such as a low- 
pitched roof, wide entablature, and austere design. The newer atti- 
tude is reflected in the tall and relatively narrow windows, higher A7 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 


rooms, and high basement, which combine to give the house more of 
a perpendicular stance than is usually found among Greek Revival 
houses. A comparison of it with the Foster-Schuck house (Plate 56) 
demonstrates this change in attitude that took place during a period 
of about twenty years. Differences here might also be attributed to 
different sources of inspiration: the Foster-Schuck house, being in 
extreme northern Indiana, is an offshoot of the Ohio-Western Re- 
serve building tradition, which stems from Connecticut, while the 
Ewing mansion reflects that of New York state. 

A large brick house, arresting in design but difficult to classify, is 
Plate 62 the Conklin-Montgomery residence at Cambridge City. The unusual 

treatment of its roof (step gable at the east end, hipped at the west) 
and exceptionally refined and satisfying entrances and windows com- 
bine to produce a distinctive work of architecture. The recessed front 
door, flanked by graceful columns and surmounted by a paneled lintel 
of Greek design, is repeated on the second story, where it serves as a 
small balcony. 

As was true of their Federal predecessors, the smaller town houses 
of Greek Revival style, two stories high and with three windows 
across the front, are exceptionally charming when well designed. One 
Plate 6 J of the most appealing of these is the Read-Foster-Reese home in Ver- 

non. Its recessed windows (without frames) are more Federal than 
Greek Revival, but the door with a low pediment-shaped lintel is 
Plate 64 Grecian in design. Another example is the Jones-Hampton house in 

Perrysville, with its recessed Greek Revival door, typical window treat- 
ment, and decorative iron balcony. 

Another distinctive type of large Greek Revival residence is that 
with a hip roof. This method of capping a house, popular throughout 
the eighteenth century, continued to appeal to builders and clients 
through the years under consideration here. As with the gable roof, 
the ridge was kept as low as practical in order to make it inconspicu- 
ous. In some instances the pitch is so shallow and the parapet so high 
that roofs cannot be seen from street level. 

Houses of this sort tend to be rather cubical in mass, with small 
entrance porticoes or no porches at all. One of the most beautiful 
and most effective in depicting the aim of builders and architects im- 

The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals 

mersed in the Greek Revival tradition is the Grisard-Sieglitz home in 
Vevay. The rhythm of windows, paired and set into panels framed by 
pilasters, is exceptional. A narrow Greek pediment caps the central 
second-story opening; rectangular attic windows in the frieze board 
effectively repeat the spacing of the windows below, and, like the 
Ewing house (Plate 6i), suggest the pattern of alternating triglyphs 
and metopes found on ancient Doric temples. The small porch, 
charming with its well-proportioned Ionic columns, is crowned with 
an iron railing which was doubtless made by the original owner who 
was a manufacturer of ornamental cast iron. 

A house similar in almost every respect except for the absence of 
attic windows is the Murphy-Bailey house at New Castle now owned Plate 66 

by the city. Still another is the HolsteinWhitsitt home at Madison Plate 67 

with a balustraded deck on the roof, the whole strongly suggestive 
of houses in New England. Attic windows appear again in the frieze 
board of the stately Willard Carpenter mansion at Evansville. Here Plate 68 

the wall surfaces, unbroken by pilasters, give a more austere aspect. 

Still another large house in this general category is the McDonald- Plate 6g 

Scribner home in Attica. Its unusual features are the tall windows 
or French doors on the second floor, opening out onto an unroofed 
balcony with handsome cast-iron railings, and the greater height of 
the second story as compared with the first. This house is said to have 
been built around 1855 which would account for its proportions and 
certain unusual details. Adherence to pure Greek principles had weak- 
ened by this date and the Italianate movement was getting under way 
toward the middle 1850's. 

The last five houses mentioned above have five windows across 
the front, or four windows and a door. We will consider next the 
three-window design. While the difference between five windows 
and three may not seem significant, it does produce quite dissimilar 
visual effects: rhythmic patterns of solids and voids differ as openings 
increase or decrease in number, as do the proportions of the walls 
themselves. The three-window mass is closer in shape to a cube than 
is the five- window block. 

Among the good large houses in this group of three-windowed, 
hip-roof Greek Revivals are the Schenck-Griffith house at Vevay, Plate 70 A,Q 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

with its Ionic porch and tall window openings indicative of a late 
Plate 71 Greek 'Revival date, and the Milford-Miller home in Attica with 

entrances sheltered by square-piered porches. 

. The two most eminent mansions belonging to this series are the 
Plates 72 and 73 Shrewsbury-Windle house in Madison and the James F. D. Lanier 

house in the same city. Both are the work of Francis Costigan, archi- 
tect; the former was built in 1849 and the latter five years earlier. 
In this connection it is rather surprising to learn that the Lanier house 
is the older of the two: its richer and more plastic design would lead 
one to place it late in the 1840's with the rise of romanticism, while 
the Shrewsbury house, retaining more of the chaste spirit of the An- 
tique, appears to be an earlier design. 

The Shrewsbury house, almost cubical in shape, has a stark and 
noble beauty unmatched by any other house in this category. Taste 
and sensitivity on the part of the architea have produced a design of 
pleasing proportions, and one which needs no enrichment beyond 
the pattern of cornice, pilasters, windows, and door. Inside, the treat- 
ment is richer: handsomely carved moldings, a columnar screen 
dividing the parlor, and one of the most beautiful spiral staircases 
in the country. 

The Lanier mansion incorporates nearly all the Greek Revival 
elements which have been referred to in above paragraphs, including 
a strikingly beautiful two-story portico on the river front. Its most 
unusual feature is the octagonal cupola with diamond-shaped panels 
in the sides (visible in Plate 73) and a projecting cornice. The cornice 
of the house itself is rich with moldings, being capped front and back 
by Grecian blocking courses. Below this is a wide entablature, boldly 
divided horizontally and with circular windows in the frieze band. 
The strong plasticity of this crowning member is matched by clearly 
defined pilasters and by pronounced window lintels, jambs, and sills. 

Interiors of Greek Revival Houses 

Interiors of Greek Revival homes differed rather strikingly from 

Plate 74 their Federal predecessors, particularly in the framing of doors and 

50 windows and in the entablature-like bands or frieze boards carried 

The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals 

around the walls. While the Federal jambs and lintels were narrow 
and usually carved, those of the Grecian style were broad and un- 
decorated. The inspiration for the latter apparently came from such 
originals as the doors of the Erechtheum at Athens and of the Temple 
of Hercules at Cora, the principal characteristic features being the 
croisettes ("ears" or "keys") at the upper comers. The flat boards 
were framed with simple moldings; and in many instances the jambs 
tapered, becoming slightly narrower as they ascended. All woodwork 
was painted white. Paneling was not a part of the decorative scheme. 

Mantelpieces were more massive than those of the Federal period, 
and rather severe in their plainness. Delicate carving had become un- 
fashionable and in its place appeared simple panels and occasionally 
pilasters or engaged columns, capped with conventionalized Grecian 
capitals, usually Doric. 

Stairways were similar in design to those of the Federal era, 
although late in the Greek Revival period the balusters and newels 
became heavier. Walls were usually painted in light tints, as in the 
preceding decade; wallpaper was used for certain rooms such as halls 
and bedrooms. In both Federal and Greek Revival homes large areas 
of floors were left uncovered. Carpets (preferably Oriental) were 
used, leaving much of the floor showing. As the century advanced 
the amount of floor coverings increased until wall-to-wall carpeting 
finally became the vogue. Taste in furniture swung from the simple 
and chaste Sheraton to the more curvilinear Dimcan Phyfe or Ameri- 
can Empire designs. 


BILLINGSLEY-MILLER HOUSE. Laughery Creek Road west of Hartford, 
Ohio County. James Billingsley original owner, Cora E. Miller present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1846. (Page 42) 


SWAYZEE-ERLEWINE HOUSE. 224 N. Washington Street, Marion, Grant County. 
Aaron C. Swayzee original owner, Mrs. Henry L. Erlewine present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1850. (Page 42) 


WALKER- EWING HOUSE. 905 E. Broadway, Logansport, Cass County. 

George B. Walker and George W. Ewing former owners, Young Men's Christian Association present owner. 

Greek Revival, c. i860. George W. Bevan architect and builder. (Pages 42-43) 


HAWKINS-LANE HOUSE, "Lane Place." Water Street, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County. 
W. P. Hawkins original owner, Henry S. Lane later owner. City of Crawfordsville present owner; 
home of the Montgomery County Historical Society. Greek Revival, 1836-43. (Page 43) 

TRIPP-CULL-JOHNSON HOUSE. 318 Jennings Street, North Vernon, 
Jennings County. Hagerman Tripp original owner, O. M. Cull later owner, 
William A. Johnson present owner. Greek Revival, 1853. (Page 43) 

HANNA-HAYDEN HOUSE. looz E. Lewis Street, Fort Wayne, Allen County. 

Samuel Hanna original owner, Fred J. Hayden and Eliza Hanna Hayden later owners, 

Fort Wayne Community Schools present owner. Greek Revival, 1845. Henry Williams architect. (Page 43) 


CAMPBELL-BANTA HOUSE. 211 E. Pike Street, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County. 
John P. Campbell origmal owner, Richard E. Banta present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1852. (Page 44) 

BURGESS-SCHNELKER HOUSE. U.S. 30, New Haven, Allen County. 
Gideon Burgess original owner, Alban Schnelker present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1840-50. (Page 44) 

Peter Certia 

POTTER HOUSE. 915 Columbia Street, Lafayette, Tippecanoe Count)'. 
William A. Potter original owner, George L. Potter, present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1845. (Page 44) 


PEACOCK-POSTON HOUSE. Washington and Brady streets, Attica, Fountain County. 
Joseph Peacock origmal owner, Floyd Poston present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1847. (Page 44) 



WRIGHT-MONROE HOUSE. State Highway 36 h Cit of Vevay, Switzerland County. 

John W. Wright original owner, Harry Monroe present owner. 

Classic Revival, 1836. Charles B. and Thomas Freeman architects-builders. (Pages 44-45) 







MARSH-WESBECKER HOUSE. Telegraph Hill, Madison, Jefferson County. 
John Marsh original owner, John Wesbecker present owner. 
Greek Revival, c. 1840. Francis Costigan (?) architect. (Page 44) 



HOWE HOUSE. Howe, La Grange County. 

John B. Howe original owner, Howe Military School present owner. 

Greek Revival, 1840. (Page 45) 

WHEELER-GOULD- MOSIER HOUSE. Charles Street, Bristol, Elkhart County. 
Thomas Wheeler original owner, Henry Gould later owner, H. F. Mosier present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1834. (Page 45) 



PROVOLT-McGUIRE HOUSE. Rolling Praine, La Porte County. 
Ezekiel Provolt original owner, W. C. McGuire present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1843. (Page 45) 

FOWLER-OBERHOLTZER HOUSE. Bristol. Elkhart County. 
Henry H. Fowler original owner, Lena E. Oberholtzer present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1836. (Page 45") 


BUTLER-LEWIS HOUSE. Dupont, JefFerson County. 

Levi Butler original owner, George B. Lewis later owner, Marjorie and Ruth Lewis present owners. 

Greek Revival, c. 1847. (Page 46) 


WILSON-GLEASON HOUSE. Municipal Golf Course, Peru, Miami Count)'. 
Alexander Wilson original owner, Reuben Gleason later owner, City of Peru present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1845. fPage 46^ 

Lti Burns 


ARMSTRONG-COPELAND HOUSE. W. Mdikcc ^^Lieet, Vc^ay, bwiucrlaiiu County. 
Thomas Armstrong original owner, Mrs. R. M. Copeland pesent owner. 
Greek Revival, c. 1840. George H. Kyle architect. (Page 46) 


GRAY-THOMPSON HOUSE. Southeast of Glenwood, Fayette County. 
Hugh Gray original owner, O. H. Thompson present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1846. (Page 46) 


HENRY-CLAWSON HOUSE. 318 W. Front Street, Delphi. Carroll County. 

L. D. Henry original owner, Mrs. Dora Lyons later owner, Walter Clawson present owner. 

Greek Revival, c. 1840. (Page 46) 

KIKENDALL-WELLING HOUSE. State Highway 7 north of Madison, Jefferson County. 
Samuel Kikendall original owner, Jacob Bramwell later owner, Harry S. Welling present owner. 
Classic Revival, c. 1840. (Page 46) 


. Jrr^\- 


F" "^ 





t ''rrj^ 




5^'7tttii >« '»».^ 

RAPP-MACLURE-OWEN HOUSE. Mam and Cliurch streets, New Harmony, Posey County. 
Father George Rapp original owner, William Maclure later owner, Kenneth Dale Owen present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1844. George Beal and John R. Hugo master carpenters. (Page 46) 

llomir hmntUrcv 


FOSTER-SCHUCK HOUSE. Northwest of Rolling Prairie, La Porte County. 
Scipha Foster original owner, Arthur F. Schuck present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1833. (Page 47) 

VORE-HUNNICUTT HOUSE. U.S. 40 west of Dublin, Wayne County. 
Jacob Vore original owner, Mr. and Mrs. J. R. Hunnicutt present owners. 
Greek Revival, style of 1845. (Page 47) 

A MICK-WARD HOUSE. State Highway 7 northwest of Scipio, Jennings County. 
Obed Amick original owner, W. Robert Amick later owner, Lester Ward present owner. 
Greek Revival, c. 1845. (Page 47) 




Green and Liberty streets, 

Perr)'sville, Vermillion County. 

John F. Smith origmal owner, 

John Anderson present owner. 

Greek Revival, 1835. (Page 47) 


McMURTRIE-RUPERT HOUSE. State Highway 28 east of Attica, Fountain County. 
Joseph M. McMurtrie original owner, Thomas M. Rupert present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1835-40. (Page 47) 



EWING HOUSE. Berry and Ewing streets, Fort Wayne, Allen County. 
William G. Ewing original owner, Albert Bulson and Don Cameron later owners, 
now the Red Cross Chapter House. Greek Revival, 1854. (Pages 47-48) 

CONKLIN-MONTGOMERY HOUSE. 302 E. Mam Street, Cambridge City, Wayne County. 
Benjamin Conklin original owner, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Montgomery present owners. 
Greek Revival, 1836. (Page 48) 

READ- FOSTER-REESE HOUSE. Brown Street, Vernon, Jennings Count) . 
Samuel Read original owner, Riley Foster later owner, Nolan Reese present owner. 
Greek Revival, c. 1840. (Page 48) 

JONES-HAMPTON HOUSE. Perrysville, Vermillion County. 

John N. Jones original owner, Calvin C. Hampton present owner. 

Greek Revival, 1845-50. William G. Torrance master carpenter. (Page 48) 



GRIZARD-SIEGLITZ HOUSE. E. Main Street. Vevay, Switzerland County. 
Frederick L. Grizard original owner, C. O. Sieglitz present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1848. (Page 49 j 

MURPHY-BAILEY HOUSE. 321 S. Main Street, New Castle, Henry County. 

Eli Murphy original owner, Cicero M. Bailey later owner, Cit)' of New Castle present owner. 

Greek Revival, 1847. (Page 49 


HOLSTEIN-WHITSITT HOUSE. 718 W. Main Street, Madison, Jefferson County. 
Louis Holstein original owner, Mrs. S. A. Whitsitt present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1840. Francis Costigan (?) architect. (Page 49) 

CARPENTER HOUSE. 405 Carpenter Street, Evansville, Vanderburgh County. 
Willard Carpenter original owner, Claude Winfrey and American Legion later owners, 
WTVW TV Channel 7 present owner. Greek Revival, 1848-49. (Page 49) 



McDONALD-SCRIBNER HOUSE. Main and Jackson streets, Attica, Fountain County. 
James McDonald original owner, Robert Scribner present owner. 
Greek Revival, c. 1855. (Page 49) 


SCHENCK-GRIFFITH HOUSE. 209 W. Market Street, Vevay, Switzerland County. 
Ulysses P. Schenck original owner, Mr. and Mrs. Clyde Griffith present owners. 
Greek Revival, 1844-46. George H. Kyle architect. (Pages 49-50) 



MILFORD-MILLER HOUSE. 414 E. Main Street, Attica, Fountain County. 
Marshall M. Milford original owner, Howard Miller present owner. 
Greek Revival, c. 1845. (Page 50) 

SHREWSBURY-WINDLE HOUSE. 301 W. First Street, Madison, Jefferson County. 
Charles L. Shrewsbury original owner, John T. Windle present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1846-49. Francis Costigan architect. (Page 50) 

LANIER HOUSE. First Street, Madison, Jefferson County. 
James F. D. Lanier originaJ owner, State of Indiana present owner. 
Greek Revival, 1844. Francis Costigan architect. (Page 50) 

Parlor of the James F. D. Lanier House, Madison, 

as restored and furnished by the State of Indiana. (Page 50) 


THOMPSON- MOUNT-RUBLE HOUSE. State Highway 46 west of Greensburg. 
Decatur County. Polk Thompson original owner, Clarence Mount later owner, 
Orvel T. Ruble present owner. Gothic Revival, c. 1855. (Page 87) 


LYONS-JONES HOUSE. 901 Jefferson Street, Rochester, Fulton County. 
Daniel Lyons original owner, Mrs. H. A. Jones present owner. 
Gothic Revival, 1856. (Page 87) 


HUNT-HICKS HOUSE. State Highway 36 west of Danville, Hendricks County. 
Zimri Hunt original owner, Carl Hicks present owner. 
Gothic Revival, c. 1855. (Page 87) 


LEHMAN-ROGERS HOUSE. West and South streets, Hanover, Jefferson County. 
Robert O. Lehman original owner, Henry C. Rogers and Jane Rogers present owners. 
Gothic Revival, 1858. (Page 87) 


HALSTEAD-CAMPBELL HOUSE. 560 E. Monroe Street, Franklin, Johnson County. 
E. Halstead original owner, George Shepherd later owner, John Campbell present owner. 
Gothic Revival, c. 1855. (Page 87) 

DURBOROW-BROADIE-DAVISSON HOUSE. 108 E. Monroe Street, Williamsport. 
Warren Count)'. Allan Durborow original owner, A. G. Broadie later owner, 
Mrs. C. V. Davisson present owner. Gothic Revival, 1855-60. (Page 88) 



CHAPIN-WILLIS HOUSE. 407 W. Navarre Street, South Bend, 

St. Joseph County. Horatio Chapin original owner, Leone Willis present owner. 

Gothic Revival, c. 1855. (Page 88) 

FOWLER HOUSE. 909 South Street, Lafayette, Tippecanoe County. 
Moses Fowler original owner, Cecil G. Fowler later owner, Tippecanoe County 
Historical Association present owner. Gothic Revival, 1851-52. (Page 88) 

Ornamental gable, , 
Sansberry-Riggs House, 
near Fairbanks 
in Sullivan County. 

DEWEY-CLAWSON HOUSE. Front and Union streets, Delphi, Carroll County. 
Aaron Dewey original owner, Jesse and Gearold Clawson present owners. 
Gothic Revival, c. 1855. (Page 88) 

Juliit Peddle 

RAMEY-MILLIGAN HOUSE. Meadow Avenue, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County. 
Mrs. Abby Ramey original owner, Joseph Milligan and Clarence Leavenworth later owners, 
R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company, present owners. Gothic Revival, 1854. (Pages 88-89) 


DU MONT- MILLER HOUSE. 304 E. Main Street, Vevay, Switzerland County. 

Sidney Dumont original owner, Julian F. Lamson later owner, 

Mr. and Mrs. Fred Miller present owners. Gothic Revival, c. 1855. (Page 89) 


OWEN HOUSE. Church Street, New Harmony, Posey County. 
David Dale Owen original owner, Kenneth Dale Owen present owner. 
Gothic Revival, 1859. David Dale Owen and James Renwick architects. (Page 






' /^ i 

^k^ viii k^s^^^SclSHHE 

^^^ '^ 



'^ >^^I^^H 




- -• ^ \:.v^^}ifii£^-^*>.-< 

^|-'^JL ||iia|MM 

STONE- HERRON HOUSE. State Highway 15 north of Wabash, Wabash County. 
Silas H. Stone, original owner, Joseph A. Herron present owner. 
Tyrolean Gothic, c. 1855. (Pages 89-90) 

SWALLOW HOUSE. U.S. 40 east of Permville, Wayne County. 
Ephraim Swallow original owner, Beatrice Swallow present owner. 
Composite style, 1861. (Page 90) 




HOUCK-H ARRIS HOUSE. 120 S. Spruce Street, Centerville, Wayne County. 
George Houck original owner, Roy M. and Elsie Harris present owners. 
Composite style, c. 1850. (Page 91) 

HACKLEMAN-DILLON HOUSE. 312 N. Main Street, Rushville, Rush County. 

Pleasant A. Hackleman original owner, Otto P. Dillon later owner. 

Veterans of Foreign Wars present owner. Italianate-Gothic Revival, c. i860. (Pages 91-92) 


HERITAGE -CORTNER HOUSE. 126 W. Pine Street, Kmghtstown. Henry County. 
Dayton Heritage original owner, L. A. Cortner present owner. 
Gothic-Italianate, c. 1866. (Page 92) 



Battle Ground, Tippecanoe County. 

H. D. Riddile original owner, 

Jesse Francis later owner, 

I. Lyle Loomis present owner. 

Gothic-Italianate, 1866-68. (Page 92) 


Cloverdale, Putnam County. 
Thomas Home original owner, 
Mrs. Christine Michael 
later owner, 
Mrs. Ernestine Sargent 
present owner. 
Octagon, c. i860. 
(Pages 93-94) 


CROOKS-PAINTER-ANDERSON HOUSE. 410 Walnut Street, Rockport, Spencer County. 
John W. Crooks original owner, Welker Painter later owner, Halleck Anderson present owner. 
Octagon, bracketed, 1859. (Page 94) 

HALL-CRULL HOUSE. One mile west of Raleigh, Rush County. 
William S. Hall original owner, Mrs. Walter Crull present owner. 
Octagon, 1855. (Page 94) 


ROSE-KUEHL HOUSE. 156 S. Garfield Street, Valparaiso, Porter Count)-. 
David Garland Rose original owner, Eva Kuehl present owner. 
Octagon, c. i860. (Page 94) 


The Gothic Mode 


A SHARP BREAK with the classic tradition occurred in domes- 
tic architecture around the year 1850 in this part of the 
country. The Gothic Revival movement had reached the 
Midwest. A few churches had been built in the revived Gothic idiom 
in the decades of the thirties and forties, while it was still fashionable 
to erect Wren-type meetinghouses, but the people of Indiana were not 
ready before the middle of the century to accept the idea that recast 
medieval architeaural forms were suitable for domestic living. 

The indoctrination process was slow but sure. Books were appear- 
ing extolling the spirit and unique beauty of Gothic architecture; 
novels by Byron, Scott, and others, based on legends and historic 
episodes of the Middle Ages, were widely read; artists were choosing 
as subjects for their canvases romantic medieval themes; and architects 
were publishing builders' guides and handbooks, demonstrating the use 
of Gothicized ornament and forms for up-to-date cottages and stress- 
ing the appropriateness and charm of the new picturesque designs 
over austere and unfashionable Grecian models. 

Basically, the Gothic style is one of vertical or perpendicular 
accents in contrast to Greco-Roman horizontality. Builders achieved 
this by using steep roofs, tall and pointed windows, and sometimes by 
resorting to vertical boards and battens for siding. Another major 
difference between the Gothic and Greek lies in ornamentation and 
the manner of applying it. As we have seen, buildings of classic inspira- 
tion were, as a rule, simple in mass and restrained in ornamentation, 
and decorative motifs were derived from ancient classical monuments. 
Gothic Revival buildings were more varied in structural form and 
richer in embellishments, and the ornamental motifs were borrowed 
from buildings of the late Middle Ages. 

The reader will find now that architectural terms change. No 


Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

A, Pinnae u 

B, Finia! 

C, Bargeboard with Cusped Tracery 

D, Hood Mold 


longer are the words pediment, entablature, portico, and so forth, 
applicable. These have to do specifically with discussions of classic or 
classically derived buildings. For an analysis of Gothic architecture 
we turn to such terms as gable, bargeboard, tracery, and cresting, to 
mention only a few. 

Rich carving, so characteristic of Gothic Revival houses, ap- 
parently delighted the American carpenter of the mid-nineteenth 
century. Pattern books with drawings based on old medieval build- 
ings were readily obtainable; and with drills, scroll saws, and chisels 
the average carpenter could turn out relatively authentic (or, if he 
wished, freely interpreted) pinnacles, finials, cusps, bosses, trefoils, 
and all the finery needed to transform a simple prairie farmhouse into 
a charming picturesque cottage. 

Both French and English prototypes were used, with more em- 
phasis on the latter, judging by existing houses and by designs found 
in popular architectural guides. Most of the men who wrote or edited 
these publications in the decade before the Civil War (A. J. Downing, 
Edward Shaw, Samuel Sloan, etc.) preferred the old English styles — 
Elizabethan or Tudor — and so titled their creations. These plans 
were shown, however, along with Rhenish, Castellated, and Pointed 
styles which seem to have been derived from Continental models. In 
this cormection it might be well to point out that these builders' 
guides reveal another fact that is frequently overlooked; namely, that 
no one style was promoted exclusive of others. Books by the above 
authors and their contemporaries continued to illustrate Grecian along 
with Gothic designs (with more examples of the latter in the publica- 
tions of the late 1840's and 1850's), and introduced at the same time 
a second novel mode, the Italianate — the subject of our next chapter. 
Gothic Revival houses in the Midwest fit into four general groups, 
as illustrated by the accompanying figures. The common farm or town 
dwelling, consisting of a simple rectangular block with a roof of nor- 
mal pitch and with an acute-angled gable attached to the main roof on 
the side, is the most usual. The type with its entrance in the gable 
end and without extensions or ells is illustrated on the preceding 
page. A similar plan, but with matching gables facing left and right, 
corresponding in design and detail to the front or entrance side, is 

The Gothic Mode 

frequently seen. And equally popular was the L-shaped plan with a 
porch in the angle and the door opening out onto the porch. Whatever 
the type, it had to display prominently a large pointed gable with 
lacy bargeboard — and not infrequently a lancet window. 

Verandas or porches were modest in size, and strikingly different 
from the porticoes of the previous decades. Posts were usually square, 
slender, sometimes with beveled corners, and frequently joined along 
the top by an ornamental band suggesting Gothic tracery. 

Two other features should be pointed out. Roofs extend beyond 
the outside walls (unlike classic examples) so that marked shadows 
were cast by eaves and ornamental bargeboards; secondly, chimneys 
become important factors in enriching the total effect or silhouette. 

A frame house that represents the commonest type of American 
Gothic is on the Thompson- Mount-Ruble farm west of Greensburg. 
It is a simple rectangular block, with a relatively steep roof from which 
a large gable springs. The attractive, lacy pattern that decorates the 
gable is continued under the eaves. A pointed window in the gable and 
tall paired windows on the first floor give the vertical accents charac- 
teristic of a building in this style. 

The Lyons-Jones cottage at Rochester is not unlike the Thomp- 
son-Mount-Ruble home in plan. Its carpenter's lace, designed like 
festoons, is exceptionally handsome; and while the windows are of 
normal proportions (that is, normal for the period), they all have 
triangular heads. Straight-sided triangles were easier to make of wood 
than curved and pointed arches. Similar window treatment is seen on 
the Hunt-Hicks farmhouse west of Danville. 

All of the windows on the front of the Lehman-Rogers cottage at 
Hanover terminate in Gothic arches, the one over the entrance being 
tripartite with the middle opening taller than the side lights. The 
dormers in the roof are decorated in keeping with the rich foliated 
band that follows the gable and eaves. 

The designer of the Halstead-Campbell house at Franklin em- 
phasized its medieval derivation by having pointed hood molds over 
the windows. Painting these white to match the window frames and 
muntins emphasizes the Gothic character of the house and creates a 
striking effect of white accents against dark-red bricks. 

Plate 75 

Plate Tj 
Plate 78 


Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

Plate 80 Another attractive building in brick is the Durborow-Broadie- 

Davisson homestead at Williamsport. Its centered cathedral window 
with small panes of glass is well designed; Tudor hoods over the other 
windows, a low-pointed arch over the front door, and a pleasing 
bargeboard on the central' gable combine to create a convincing neo- 
Gothic house. The porch of a much later date is unsatisfactory in 
scale and design, detracting considerably from an otherwise unified 
architectural composition. 

Plate 81 Larger examples of the Gothic Revival variety are the Chapin- 

Plate 82 Willis frame house at South Bend and the Moses Fowler stucco house 

at Lafayette. The former, in addition to its undulating, vinelike 
bargeboard, has characteristic English Gothic arched windows: lancet 
in the gable, Tudor four-centered on the second floor, and flat-arched 
on the first floor, all with heavy hood moldings. The outer walls have 
been treated in such a way as to increase their textural qualities: cus- 
tomary clapboards on the first story, a band of boards laid like shingles 
in the area between floors, and board-and-batten treatment on the 
second story. The last was a favored device for adding to the illusion 
of verticality mentioned earlier. 

The Fowler house is probably the finest of the large Gothic 
Revival residences still standing in Indiana. In addition to features 
already mentioned, it has a large bay window on the central projection 
and an oriel window to the left of it. Dormers break the line of the 
eaves, and a chimney, designed after English medieval models, rises 
from the ridge of the roof. The woodwork both inside and out is 
skilfully carved in keeping with original Gothic inspirations. 

The second interpretation of the Gothic in terms of American 
home building is the simple oblong block with the entrance in the 
end. A handsome example of this, which is in good state of preserva- 

Plate 8 J tion, istheDewey-Clawson home at Delphi. Its exceptionally attractive 

bargeboard ends in pendants at the lower corners, matching the one 
in the apex; the central window of the second floor accurately simu- 
lates authentic Gothic tracery, and the square-headed windows that 
flank it, as well as those below, have the traditional hood moldings. 
The best example in the state of the T-plan house, with three sim- 
O O Plate 84 ilar gables, is the Ramey-Milligan brick home in Crawfordsville. Here 

The Gothic Mode 

the mullions of the windows divide the openings into two sections, in 
the best Gothic tradition; while the pinnacles on the peak of the roof 
as well as at the lower ends of the bargeboards are complimented by 
long pendants. Interior woodwork carries out the tradition as effec- 
tively as the exterior does, and both show exceptional craftsmanship 
and devotion to detail. 

The L-shaped plan with a small porch in the angle is a common 
building form throughout this region and only becomes identified 
with the Gothic Revival by virtue of decorated bargeboard and orna- 
mental woodwork on the porch. A good example is the Dumont- Plate 83 
Miller house at Vevay. While the type is not unusual, this particular 
cottage combines in a most pleasing way many of the features which 
have been pointed out above. 

The most individualistic of the Gothicized buildings in the state 
is David Dale Owen's house and laboratory at New Harmony. Basi- Plate 86 

cally, in plan, it is an L-shaped dwelling with a stubby projeaion facing 
the street, and an extension at left housing a laboratory. Its varying 
masses and ornamental features lend to it an air of picturesqueness and 
informality. Crestings on the eaves and over first-floor windows are 
medieval in spirit, although unusual in American nineteenth-century 
domestic architecture. The cupola with its sweeping roof (resembling 
a Chinese coolie's hat) echoes this cresting and adds picturesqueness 
to the skyline. 

The feeling on the part of many people in the 1850's that Gothi- 
cized houses tended to look more like chapels than homes probably 
had something to do with the brevity of this style's popularity. Gothic 
Revival's contemporary rival, the Italianate, was more widely accepted 
and lasted longer. A second Gothic movement, usually called the Vic- 
torian Gothic, appeared in the 1870's and i88o's, largely as a result of 
John Ruskin's preachments. This was based on Northern Italian 
medievalism, rather than English, and was found to be best suited to 
large civic or educational buildings. More about it later. 

A number of houses of medieval inspiration, contemporaneous 
with the Gothic Revival of the 1850's, are not based on French proto- 
types but appear to be more Germanic or Swiss. For instance, the 
Joseph A. Herron farm home, north of Wabash, is remmiscent of O Q 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

Bavarian houses, particularly in the use of flat balusters cut to form 
picturesque, rhythmic patterns along the railings of porches. These 
are painted white while the adjoining wood members are gray-green. 
The bargeboard is attractively decorated with a cusp and foil fringe. 
Plate 88 Another engaging country house is that of the Swallow family east 

of Pennville, on the National Road. Its low-pitched gable roof 
strongly reflects the Italianate spirit that was competing with the 
northern Gothic for attention, but the absence of brackets under the 
eaves (an Italianate feature) and the presence of Gothicized elements 
place it more in the domain, stylistically speaking, of the north. 
Judging by similar examples in northern Germany, one might reason- 
ably label it Teutonic. And then, too, it is not unlike a type of house 
found in early builders' guides christened Cottage Ornee by the 



Composite Styles and 
the Octagon Plan 

MENTION was made previously of the strong tendency 
during the nineteenth century to combine historic styles, 
„, generally regarded as incompatible, in designing new 

houses. Such practice in the first decades of the century was not 
unorthodox because the popular styles — Georgian Colonial, Federal, 
and Neo-Classic — were all basically Greek or Roman in inspiration 
and therefore belonged to the same general family. But with the swing 
toward medieval prototypes in the 1850's, mixtures of Gothic and 
Roman, or Greek and Italianate, occurred frequently. Although such 
unorthodox practices have distressed more than one historian or critic, 
we must confess that many of the composites are far from unpleasant. 

A white farmhouse which is clearly a composite of Grecian and 
Gothic elements is the Hunt-Hicks place, already discussed (Plate 
77). The Houck-Harris frame house in Centerville is typical of a Plate 8g 

large number of American dwellings of the 1850's which are basically 
Greek Revival in their simple oblong masses, low-pitched roofs, 
corner pilasters, and classic doors, but which have carpenter's fringe 
decorating gables and eaves. The brackets supporting the cornice or 
hood over the front door is in the Italianate spirit, as are the tall win- 
dows. One might justifiably speculate in this case on the possibility of 
this house being a Greek Revival structure of the late 1840's with 
"modem" touches added in the fifties. This happened to numerous 
homes throughout the state. The careful house observer will find that 
the commonest device used in the 1850's and i86o's to modernize and 
embellish older houses was to put brackets under eaves and ornamental 
lintels over doors and windows. 

An amalgamation of the Gothic Revival and the Italianate is 
successfully achieved in the present home of the Veterans of Foreign Plate go 

Wars at Rushville. Unlike the Gothic Revival residences discussed Q I 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

in the preceding chapter, it has a flat roof and wide eaves supported 
by handsome brackets or consoles. Paired Gothicized windows adorn 
the facade and end walls (the lower ones are capped with hood molds), 
and there are latticed trefoil canopies between the porch posts. 

A rather diverting, yet not unpleasant design, incorporating classic 

Plate gi and romantic traits, is the Heritage-Cortner cottage at Knightstown. 

The cusped bargeboard and the window in the front gable are defi- 
nitely Gothic, but the front door with its semicircular light capped 
by a paneled arch and the flat-arched window heads are Italianate. 

Plate g2 The Riddile-Loomis residence at Battle Ground in Tippecanoe 

County presents to the passer-by a semi-Gothic gable combined with 
a mansard-type (Franco-American) tower. The carved ornament in 
the apex of the gable and the pointed-arch windows of the second floor 
are of one idiom, while the first-floor windows and the tower belong 
to another. But the marriage, while capricious, is not an unhappy one. 

Octagon Flan 

Before taking up the subject of the Italianate movement in Ameri- 
can home building, it might be well to discuss a relatively minor 
architectural tendency that appeared around this time; namely, the 
octagon house or "round house." 

Residents of Indiana are familiar with round or octagonal barns 
because a number of them are to be found throughout the state, but 
less conspicuous are our eight-sided domiciles. Only about half a 
dozen are known to the author; and if it were not for their intriguing 
concept and unorthodox planning, one would be inclined to disregard 
them in a survey of this kind. 

While the concept of polygonal buildings — whether six, eight, 
or more sided — appeared well before the nineteenth century, it had 
its greatest vogue in this country from about 1850 onward. Its princi- 
pal protagonist was Orson Squire Fowler, of Fishkill, New York, a 
philosopher, lecturer, writer, and authority on phrenology, who pub- 
lished his well-known thesis, A Home for All, in 1854. The influence 
of this work (which came out in subsequent editions for the next 
Q 2, five years) was widespread, but in spite of the enthusiasm of the 

Composite Styles and the Octagon Plan 

author and his disciples, relatively few home builders succumbed to 
the novel idea. 

Fowler advanced his argument for the octagon dwelling upon 
logical and clear-cut points: it was economical, practical, and aesthetic. 
Octagons provided more usable volume than ordinary' rectangular 
buildings; to quote him: "the nearer spherical our houses, the more 
inside room for the outside wall." The octagonal plan reduced heat 
loss, and aftorded more exposure for light and ventilation. Octagons 
are more pleasing aesthetically, according to him, because the more 
closely the angle approaches the circle the more beautiful is the effect. 

Since the Fowleresque scheme placed such strong emphasis on 
utility and beauty, it is surprising that more people did not succumb 
to it. Tenacious adherence to tradition and fear of being regarded as 
an advocate of freakishness probably kept most people on the easier 
path of conformity. And then, too, the layout of rooms within an 
octagon was not as practical for ever^'-day living as it appeared on 

Octagon houses, for the most part, are two-storied buildings with 
low-pitched p\Tamidal roofs and little or no ornamental treatment on 
the exteriors. They do not belong to a specific architectural style, 
because, having been built in different decades, they took on the 
embellishments of the st^'le most in vogue at the time: Neo-Classic, 
Gothic, Italianate. In many instances, however, no particular idiom 
is evident, the satisfj'ing geometric shape being sufficient, in theory, 
to please the critical observer. 

Houses of octagonal design in Indiana are of wood fabrication, 
although brick, stone, and gravel with concrete were used in their 
construction in other parts of the country'. Although Fowler advo- 
cated large porches, preferably encircling the houses, local examples 
are restrained in this regard. Their floor plans vary slightly from a 
general scheme to provide the necessary' number of practical rooms, 
with cupboards, vestibules, and stairhalls occupying the remaining 

The Horne-Michael-Sargent house in Cloverdale in Putnam 
County is a simple geometric statement, with pleasing double win- 
dows. A porch — its only decorative feature — follows the contour of 


:re gj 


Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

the building on two sides. The eight segments of the roof meet at a 
deck from which rises the chimney. 

Plate g4 The Crooks-Painter-Anderson residence at Rockport is more im- 

posing with its varied fenestration, small but attractive entrance 
porch, and cupola crowning the very low-pitched roof. 

Plate p5 A recessed porch gives' the Hall-Crull home near Raleigh, Rush 

County, a different effect. Unobtrusive brackets, unadorned windows, 
and plain wall surfaces lend, by contrast, more emphasis to the porch 
railings with their rhythmic paddlelike balusters. The porch posts are 
octagonal, echoing the plan of the house itself. 

Plate g6 Most unusual because of its roof treatment is the Rose-Kuehl 

frame house at Valparaiso. Eight gable roofs meet in the center, their 
bargeboards embellished with rows of leaflike pendants. The porch, 
probably of later date, does not conform in design nor follow the 
shape of the building itself. 

The Merriam house in Logansport, on East Market Street, is of 
later date (although reportedly built in the i86o's) and lacks the 
charm of the above octagons. Pedimentlike gables extend from two 
of the hipped sectors of the roof. This type of construction, together 
with the use of shingles on the face of the gable, is charaaeristic of 
the Neo-Jacobean style which will be discussed later. The one-storied 
"round house," owned by Carl Valentine, east of Terre Haute on 
State Road 42, is the most modest of the octagons in the state. It is 
believed to have been built about 1856. 

Residents of Indianapolis will recall a landmark on North Meri- 
dian Street in the 3400 block which was razed recently. Built of 
brick, its red tile roof made it conspicuous among neighboring 
residences, and its plan was unusual inasmuch as it was designed like an 
elongated octagon. It, too, was later in date than the ortagonal homes 
discussed above, probably having been built in the first years of the 
twentieth century. 

Two well-known examples of octagon houses in the northern 

part of the state have been razed recently: the Slabaugh-Rohrer stone 

building in Clay Township near Logansport and the George Mathews 

home east of New Carlisle. A third one, at Zionsville, has been gone 

Q\A for several years. A modest member of this class that still stands is the 

Composite Styles and the Octagon Plan 

"round house" on the east edge of Newport, built around 1850 to 
serve as an office for John Wesley Parrett, a justice of the peace. 

American Vernacular 

The repeated references in this book to the various foreign influ- 
ences exerted on American building during the nineteenth century, 
and the use of European terms in designating the new styles, probably 
leave in the mind of the reader the impression that our architecture 
has been predominantly imitative and eclectic, and that no effort was 
made to stimulate or encourage original, creative designing. Such was 
not the case. Emerson, for instance, expressed himself forcefully on 
this point: 

Why need we copy the Doric or the Gothic model? Beauty, convenience, grandeur 
of thought, and quaint expression art as near to us as to any, and if the American 
artist will study with hope and love the precise thing to he done by him, considering 
the climate, the soil, the length of the day, the wants of the people, the habit and form 
of government, he will create a home in which all of these will find themselves fitted, 
and taste and sentiment will be satisfied also. 

On the other hand, many people believed that the study of older 
architectural monuments on the part of young designers — perhaps 
even to the point of copying them — would result in greater appreci- 
ation and understanding of sound architectural principles, and that 
such an approach would lead to originality and eventually to the 
achievement of an American vernacular. 

In the middle of the century, for instance, and at the height of 
what we have come to call the "revivals" (a term not used, so far as 
this author knows, by early nineteenth-century writers) there ap- 
peared in A. J. Downing's book. The Architecture of Country Houses 
(1850), very pungent statements along this line. For Downing, 
the fine old buildings should serve to develop ideas of beauty, har- 
mony, and morality in addition to revealing the basic elements of 
good architecture — proportion, symmetry, variety, harmony, imity, 
and so forth. But they should not be copied slavishly. In one place 
he makes this very clear: Q C 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 


There is no reason why the architect of this country and age should not adopt 
the ideas of other countries, as manifested in the styles of art begotten in those countries. 
But he should do this understandingly, and with some purpose in it. There is little to 
he said in defense of those who copy foreign houses and imitate foreign manners, for 
the mere sake of imitation, in a country so full of good and noble suggestions for social 
and domestic life as our own. .' . . Our own soil is the right platform upon which a 
genuine national architecture must grow, though it will be aided in its growth hy all 
foreign thoughts that mingle harmoniously with its simple and free spirit. 

As for our having attained an indigenous American style during 
the nineteenth century, a number of opinions have been expressed. 
One of the earliest essays along this line appeared in The Architectural 
Review and American Builders' fournal, November, 1868, in vi^hich the 
author, probably one of the editors of the Journal, wrote: 

The climate of our country, if nothing else, must prompt the production of an 
indigenous style in architecture, the precedaneous styles of which are already discernible 
by the European observer. It is, as yet, in the external design of our domestic con- 
struction, that the dawn of the coming style is to be detected; and the necessities of 
climate have prompted its appearance in that department, as being the more intimate 
dominion of our human family. . . . 

Its \_distinctive American style' s'\ appearance is pleasing to Europeans; and, indeed, 
it has many points about it superior to the domestic architecture of Europe. . . . Those 
prominent cornices, so highly ornamented, and those brackets, which, while they support 
them, give, at the same time, such a distinctive feature of this style, as to be known to 
English architects, as American Bracketed Architecture; those umbrageous "stoops"; 
those broad and shady piazj:as, all now so peculiarly our own, are some of the features, 
which go to make up this new style. Yet, it is the combination of them, that makes the 
distinctiveness, for, the features just named are, of themselves, all derived from Euro- 
pean sources. Our climate prompted their application to our wants; and the native 
taste of our architects created that effect, which may now take the name of a style. 

The author of this editorial was referring to the then popular 
movement know^n as the Italian, or Italian Villa style, which is being 
discussed in the next chapter. But each of the preceding movements 
that lasted for any length of time and found wide acceptance, pro- 
duced statements in dialects that have a truly American ring. 

Composite Styles and the Octagon Plan 

The average Federal house, for instance, could not be mistaken 
for a European residence, particularly the type represented by the 
Jeremiah Sullivan house at Madison — a type that is so characteristic 
of old Georgetown as well as of this region. The same can be said of 
the small Greek Revival cottages, analyzed in a previous chapter. 
Except for those few edifices purposely imitating antique prototj'pes 
they are as Yankee as anything we have. 

It is of interest to notice that the possibility of this becoming 
an American vernacular was foreseen (and dreaded) by the editor of 
Sloan's Architectural Review and Builders' Journal in 1868, who wrote: 

In times past, which, in this young country of ours we are apt to look upon as 
ages, the Grecian and Roman styles were models adopted for public and private build- 
ings. And fearfully were those models treated. In fact, so great was the liberty taken 
with them, that we narrowly escaped the misfortune of this being taken by the world 
Jor an indigenous style. 

Nor can our Gothic Revival houses be mistaken for any of the 
medieval models from which they superficially stem. Neither the 
English nor the French evolved domestic architectural designs like 
them. The English clung tenaciously to their Tudor or Elizabethan 
building traditions throughout the nineteenth century in building in 
the Neo-Gothic tradition, except for the last phase, when they turned 
to Venice and north Italv for inspiration. 

There appears to this author less of a purely native or indigenous 
stamp on the Italianate houses than on the preceding ones just men- 
tioned. However, the first editor quoted above felt certain that in this 
style, too, we had achieved something distinctly ours: an American 
Bracketed Architecture. 

Interiors of Gothic Revival and Italianate Houses 

Interiors of Federal and Greek Revival homes were discussed in 
previous sections of this book. Here we shall deal with those of the 
1850's and i86o's, when the Gothic and Italian influences were the 

As no authentically furnished rooms of those decades can now ^y 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 


be seen around here, so far as we know, one has to turn to old publica- 
tions for information. One which is especially informative is Down- 
ing's The Architecture of Country Houses, cited above, and it is from 
chapters in it that most of the following observations stem. 

Downing was writing at a time when the Grecian vogue was all 
but over and the Gothic and Italianate were in the ascendancy, so his 
remarks were based on a comparative analysis of these styles, pointing 
out correct architeaural details and appropriate furnishings for each. 

The importance of carrying out the same style both within a home 
and on the exterior was emphasized by the author. This involved not 
only the shapes of doors and windows but the types of moldings as 
well. It also had to do with kinds of fireplaces, newel posts, wall treat- 
ments, floor coverings, and furniture. 

Taking the Gothic style first, we learn that while pointed arches 
over doors and windows were preferable, most home builders settled 
for flat-headed openings and relatively plain moldings. The latter, 
however, should be different so far as the two contemporaneous styles 
were concerned: the Gothic being rather thick and bold in relief, in 
contrast to flatter and broader moldings for the Italianate. This applied 
especially to the framing of doors and windows. An attempt was made 
by the carpenter-builder of the Lehman-Rogers house at Hanover 
to achieve a Gothic effect by raising the central portion of the door 
headings (Plate 78). Pointed openings might be "ecclesiastical" (high 
pointed) or "Tudor" (low pointed). Square-headed openings could 
be made to appear Gothic by the introduction of anarch in the wood- 
work of the architrave. On several of the houses already alluded to 
(Plates 76, 77, and 78) the triangular spaces over the windows are 
false, having no lights. 

Ceilings of rooms in this idiom should be traversed by ribs or 
small beams, usually of plaster, to convey the impression of medieval 
timber construction, the ribs resting on brackets where they meet the 
walls. In larger homes the beams were of wood, with chamfering and 
beading on the undersides, and stained. 

The general effea of these interiors was more Elizabethan than 
French Gothic, as Downing pointed out. This is understandable, 
since English and American builders were better informed about and 

Composite Styles and the Octagon Plan 

more sympathetic, temperamentally, with the former. Fireplaces 
(chimney pieces) and furniture were most frequently modifications or 
new interpretations of it. The Elizabethan spirit was also carried out 
in the use of dark wood trim and wainscot work, the latter appearing 
most frequently in libraries. 

Floor coverings, wall treatments (paint or wallpaper), and drap- 
eries were decorative and colorful, becoming more ornate in the fol- 
lowing decades. A Gothic touch was achieved for window draperies 
by cutting the valance in such a way as to form a pointed arch. 

The Italian style, as Downing termed it, is more difficult to sum- 
marize than the Gothic. To quote him: 

The new element of beauty introduced into the style called Italian is the use of 
the circle, subordinate to, and contrasting with, the hori^ntal or straight line. This is 
seen, chiefly, in the round arch, which appears in the doors and windows. There is 
also far greater latitude and variety in the ornaments of the different modes of the 
Italian architecture — including the Florentine, Venetian, and French under this head 
— than in the purely classical style. It addresses itself more to the feelings and the senses, 
and less to the reason or judgment. . . . Hence, we think it far better suited to symbolize 
the variety of refined culture and accomplishment which belongs to modem civilisation 
than almost any other style. 

Ceilings of important rooms had plaster relief decorations, some- 
times with trellis patterns, sometimes with floral motifs. Mantel 
pieces were based on early Italian or Romanesque prototypes, banister 
and newels of stairs were heavier than the Greek Revival, and openings 
were framed with strong, stained moldings. Like the Gothic Revival, 
floor and wall coverings were rather rich in color and pattern. 


RILEY HOUSE. 250 W. Main Street, Greenfield, Hancock Count)'. 

Reuben Riley original owner, James Whitcomb Riley later owner, 

Riley Old Home Society of Greenfield present owner. Italianate, 1849-50. (Page lli 


BEESON HOUSE. West of Bentonville, Fayette County. 
Temple Beeson original owner, Robert Beeson present owner. 
Italianate, c. 1855. (Pages 118-19) 




199 S. Washington Street, 

Hagerstown, Wayne County. 

William Stonebraker original 


C. B. Harter present owner. 

Italianate, c. 1865. (Page 119) 



600 E. Main Street, 

New Albany, Floyd County. 

John Sloan original owner, 

Mrs. John M. Paris, Sr., 

present owner. 

Italianate, 1852. (Page 119) 


Carolyn E. M^Manaman 

DIET2-OGDEN HOUSE. 562 Main Street, 
Lawrenceburg, Dearborn County. 
A. V. Dietz former owner, 
Louis Ogden present owner. 
Italianate, 1860-70. (Page loi) 



Moscow Road north of 

Greensburg, Decatur Count)-. 

Walter B. Pleak original owner, 

Mrs. Elizabeth Kanouse and 

Mrs. WiHiamette Lemmon 

present owners. 

Italianate, 1864. (Page 120) 



H EATON-BOND-IRWIN HOUSE. State Highway 29 south of Michigantown, Clinton County. 
Theodore Heaton original owner, James Perry Bond later owner, 
Mrs. William H. Irwin present owner. Italianate, c. 1865. (Page 120) 

HAUCK-SCHAEFFER HOUSE. 00NS-880W, Kokomo, Howard County. 

Isaac H. Hauck origmal owner, Edward M. SchaefFer, Jr., present owner. 

Italianate, c. i860. (Page 120) ^^^ O j^^^ 



SWAN-ANDERSON HOUSE. 1020 Indiana Avenue, La Porte, La Porte County. 
Fred Swan original owner, W. J. Anderson present owner. 
Italianate, 1870. (Page 120) 

LUDOVICI-CaJACOB house, iooo S. Sixth Street, Terre Haute, Vigo County. 
John B. Ludovid original owner, Melville Cajacob present owner. 
Italianate, 1873. Josse Vrydagh architect. (Page 120) 


HOUSE. 141 1 S. Sixth Street, 
Terre Haute, Vigo County. 
William H. Sage original owner, 
Henry Robinson and 
Clemens W. Nagel later owners, 
Vigo County Historical 
Society present owner. 
Italianate, 1868, with 
later additions. (Page 121) 



National Avenue at Lambert 

Street, Brazil, Clay County. 

Jacob M. Gonter original owner, 

Mrs. Daniel Davis present owner. 

Italianate, 1859. (Page I2l) 


DoTsey O. Thomas 



Southeast of Fairfield 

(P.O. Oakford), Howard County. 

Frederick Youngman original 

owner, Mrs. Rosie Becker 

present owner. 

Italianate, 1876. (Page 121) 


Indianapolis Star 


1230 N. Delaware Street, 

Indianapolis, Marion County. 

Benjamin Harrison original owner, 

Arthur Jordan Foundation present 

owner. Italianate, 1874. (Page 121) 

no - 



528 Lockerbie Street, 

Indianapolis, Marion County. 

John R. Nickum 

original owner, 

Charles L. and Magdalene 

Holstein later owners 

(with whom Riley made his 

home for thirty-five years), 

Riley Memorial Association 

present owner. 

Italianate, 1872. (Page 121) 



951 N. Delaware Street, 

Indianapolis, Marion County. 

Charles H. G. Bals origmal 

owner, John Wocher later 

owner, George H. Pattison 

present owner, Hisey and Titus 

Mortuary leaseholder. 

Italianate, 1869. (Page 121) 




m ^1 J' '^^l 

tt 4 1 rffl 

1 -r>.'^- ■ 

, .V^-s;?^? 

Will Ball 

IOI2 E. Market Street, 
Logansport, Cass Count)^ 
Asa Coleman original owner, 
Mrs. John S. Lair^^ present owner. 
Italianate, c. i88o. (Page I2l) 


WALDRON-FRASCH HOUSE. 829 N. Twenty-first Street, Ufayetre, Tippecanoe County 
Edward H. Waldron original owner, M. G. Frasch present owner. 
Italianate, 1877-78. (Page 121) 

David IV. Peat 

GUTHRIE-PICKETT HOUSE. Tunnelton, Lawrence County. 
Alfred Guthrie original owner, Thomas Pickett present owner. 
Italianate, 1879. (Page 121) 


HAMILTON-HUNTER HOUSE. 132 W.Washington Street, Shelbyville, Shelby County. 

Samuel Hamilton original owner, Burton Steinhauser later owner, 

William C. Hunter present owner (Hunter Hotel). Italianate, c. 1855. (Page 122) 

SMITH-CRIPE HOUSE. Diamond and Water streets, Kendallville, Noble County. 

John Smith and Albert Hutchins former owners, 

Otis C. and Leila (Hutchins) Cripe present owner. Italianate, c. i860. (Page 122) 


EDWARDS-AIMONE HOUSE. 145 S. Fifth Street, Clinton, Vermillion County. 
George H. Edwards original owner, Jennie Hedges later owner, 
John R. Aimone present owner. Italianate, 1875. (Page 122) 



HOUSE. 412 Tenth Street, 

Logansport, Cass County. 

DeWitt C. Justice original owner, 

Mary E. Puterhaugh present owner. 

Italianate, 1874. (Page 122) 


Will Ball 

1206 E. Main Street, New Albany, 
Floyd County. 

Robert G. McCord original owner, 
Fred Stoll present owner. 
Italianate, 1866-67. (Page 122) 



DROVER- DITZLER HOUSE, 327 Etna Street, Huntington, Huntington County. 
Henry Orover original owner, Ray L. Ditzler last owner. 
Italianate, c. i860. Razed. (Page 122) 

HOUSE. 602 Cherry Street, 
Crawfordsville, Montgomery 
County. James S. McClelland 
original owner, Mrs. Minter D. 
Layne present owner. Italianate 
(Tuscan Villa), c. i860. (Page 123) 


Ine^ Twitchell 

SONNTAG-KIECHLE HOUSE. 726 S. E. First Street, Evansville, Vanderburgh County. 
George S. Sonntag original owner, Frederick L. Kiechle present owner. 
Italianate (Tuscan Villa), 1859. (Page 123) 


FOELLINGER-LUTES HOUSE. 447 Wildwood Avenue, Fort Wayne, Allen Count}'. 
Jacob Foellinger original owner, Mrs. Albert M. Lutes present owner. 
Italianate (Tuscan Villa), 1872. (Page 123) 


Elsa Strassweg 

CROMIE HOUSE. 1003 E. Main Street, New Albany, Floyd County. 
John P. Cromie original owner, Turley Nursing Home present owner. 
Italianate, 1866. (Page 123) 


SUTTON-TURNER HOUSE. National Road and S. W. 15th Street, Richmond, 
Wayne County. David Sutton original owner, E. M. and Addie V. Turner present owners. 
Italianate (Tuscan Villa), 1875. (Page 123) 


HOUSE. io6 N. Pleasant Street, 
Edinburg, Johnson County. 
John A. Thompson original owner, 
J. B. Sconce present owner. Italianate 
(Tuscan Villa), 1867. (Page 123) 

NIXON-FOSDICK HOUSE. One Fosdick Street 

Liberty, Union County. John S. Nixon original 

owner, Eugene and Janet Fosdick present owners. 

Italianate— Neo-Jacobean, c. 1875. (Pages 123-24) 

The Anglo-Italian Mode 


TALIANATE is the term now commonly applied to the mid- 
century movement based on the Italian medieval and early Ren- 
aissance architectural works. It became one of the most popular 
building styles in our country during the nineteenth century, even to 
the degree of leading some Europeans to regard it as a significant 
American architectural statement and to refer to it as an American 
vernacular or indigenous development — as was noted in the preceding 
chapter. Its popularity, according to a writer of the period, was due 
both to its beauty and elegance and to its appropriateness and ready 
adaptation to every kind of building. 

Results of the Italian fever which swept across America were 
numerous and varied in the field of home building. Small or large, 
brick or wood, urban or rural, stylish new houses were cast in one or 
another interpretation of the Italian idiom. So plentiful were the plans 
and elevations in current carpenters' guides and magazines that the 
prospective builder had no difficulty finding something fashionable 
that would fit his particular need and pocketbook. 

Manuals and handbooks of the 1850's and i86o's for architects 
and builders not only contain many intriguing and picturesque designs, 
but they reveal the names with which architects christened their 
creations: Tuscan Villa, Cottage in Italian Style, Villa Farm House, 
Bracketed Villa, Italian Style Lodge, Anglo-Italian Villa, Irregular 
Villa in the Italian Style, and so forth. Seldom was a home called a 
house; it was either a villa, a cottage, or occasionally, a lodge — particu- 
larly if it was in the English medieval tradition which was based on 
Anglo-Norman structures still extant. 

The intention of the exponents of this new trend in architecture 
was to achieve comfort and livability along with informality and a de- 
gree of picturesqueness. The Italian medieval or Romanesque system 


Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 




Plate 97 


Plate g8 

of building lent itself admirably to these. It was informal without 
being bizarre; it could be stately without being ostentatious; it could 
adapt itself to American methods of living, in cities or country. 

As the following pages show, the early Italianate movement here 
assumed a number of guises, but all examples had in common a 
studied irregularity of masses (sometimes with towers), a preference 
for round-arched doors and windows, low-pitched roofs, and over- 
hanging eaves supported by brackets. Most of the features that 
distinguish Greek Revival houses, and those that mark the Gothic 
Revival, are not to be found in the Italianate. And here again we 
find a different architectural vocabulary. 

To most people who have delved into the subject of American 
architecture the term Tuscan Villa conjures up a picture of a square- 
towered, flat-roofed house with projecting eaves supported by 
brackets, as shown in the builders' guides of the period. Actually, 
while these were popular in all parts of the country, they were by no 
means the common type. The one most frequently built was the 
simple oblong block with medium-pitched gable roof and, of course, 
prominent brackets under projecting eaves. Doors and windows 
tended to be circular headed in brick dwellings, but usually flat in frame 
houses. This is obviously the same house, basically, as the simple, 
rectangular type we analyzed in the Federal and Greek Revival 
periods. But while proportions are the same, the classic entablature 
has given way to a cornice board and conspicuous brackets; win- 
dows are taller and narrower, and a picturesque piazza or porch was 
invariably an important part of the total composition. 

A typical example of this type is the Reuben Riley house in Green- 
field, boyhood home of James Whitcomb Riley, built in 1850. It will be 
noticed that the cornice returns around the gable ends of the building, 
as in previous examples, and that the brackets, also, continue around the 
corners. The porch here appears to be a later addition. Another fea- 
ture that is characteristic of this gable-roofed oblong type is the hori- 
zontal gutter and cornice. Instead of having the slope of the roof con- 
tinue until it reaches the eaves, it levels off when it meets the gutter. 

An exceptionally chaste and attractive representative of this group, 
without alterations, is the Beeson farm home near Bentonville, Fay- 

The Anglo-Italian Mode 

ette County. The modillions used here, instead of large brackets, to 
support the eaves and the sturdy pilasters along the front give it a 
decidedly classic flavor. However, the level gutters, ornamental win- 
dow heads, and rather tall openings are in the new Italian spirit. 

Houses of this type in wood or brick are so numerous in the state 
that space does not permit listing them here. In addition to those 
which were built in the 1850's one frequently comes across older 
houses — Federal or Greek Revival — which were modernized in the 
fifties by adding brackets under the eaves and porches along the front. 

Another interpretation of this general t^e is the Stonebraker- Plate gg 

Harter house at Hagerstown built of brick. The roof treatment is 
similar to that in the Riley and Beeson homes, but stronger adher- 
ence to the picturesque movement is shown in the arched panels in 
the walls and the ornamental lintels above windows. Recessed doors 
reflect the Greek Revival tendency, but the arched opening and small 
balcony on the second floor are in the spirit of the new romantic 
trend. Brackets are paired and widely spaced. 

A more pretentious member of this group is the large brick Sloan- Plate 1 00 

Paris residence at New Albany. While retaining its tie to the preced- 
ing decade with its Greek Revival door and window heads, it aligns 
itself with the fashion of its day by its display of paired brackets 
supporting a leveled-off cornice and prominent hoods over the 
second-story windows supported by large brackets. 

A considerably smaller urban home in this same general category 
is the Dietz-Ogden residence at Lawrenceburg. Its square facade, in Plate 101 

contrast to the oblong proportions of the above, and small dimensions 
(three windows across the front) give it quite a different aspect from 
the ones we have been discussing. Prominent brackets and elliptical 
hood molds over windows and door relate it even more closely than 
some of those mentioned above to the true Italianate and suggest a 
building date in the i86o's rather than in the fifties. The reader will 
notice that we have here the same basic plan as the small urban Federal 
or Greek Revival houses, as seen, for instance, in Plates 14 and 62. 

Although the intention of builders who worked in this new 
aesthetic climate was to achieve picturesqueness through informal 
design and superimposed ornamentation, many of the early Italianate ^ ^ 9 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

buildings were basically simple and symmetrical, as seen in the ex- 
amples above. This was due to the practicality and economy of the 
oblong house, as well as to a lingering preference for former styles. 
The preceding classic idiom had another feature which some of the 
buildings of the 1850's seemed reluctant to abandon, and that was the 
false gable projecting from the long or front slope of the roof, as on 

Piiiic > the Pleak farmhouse northwest of Greensburg, and on the old Livy 

Hamilton brick home north of the same city (not illustrated), both 
having the same design and apparently the work of the same architect 
or master builder. 

All the features pertaining to the Italianate house with its entrance 
on the long side apply to the gable-end entrance type. The latter, too, 
is closely related to the Greek Revival examples discussed in the last 
chapter, its principal mark of differentiation being the use of brackets, 
arched windows, and steeper roof. 

Piiiic ivj A modest representative of this series is the Heaton-Bond-Irwin 

home, a story-and-a-half frame cottage south of Michigantown, and 

Plate 104 its country cousin, the Hauck-Schaeffer home, near Kokomo. 

People driving north of Indianapolis on Highway 31 have doubt- 
less noticed the attractive Hunt-Richards residence west of Westfield. 
It closely resembles the above, but its triple window above the front 
door, three circular "portholes" in the gable, and cusped bargeboards 
give it an individual flavor. 

Two-storied examples are numerous in communities throughout 

Piiuc 10 j Indiana. The Swan-Anderson home in La Porte and the Thomas 

Mayhill home at Knightstown (not illustrated) show variations in 
roof pitch and window treatment within this family circle. Many 
more are seen on farms and in towns throughout the state. 

A house of this general type, but more Renaissance in spirit than 
medieval, is the brick and stone building in Terre Haute, originally 

Plate 106 built by John Ludovici but now owned by Dr. Cajacob. The cus- 

tomary brackets have been replaced with modillions, quoins have 
been used on the corners, and curved pediments appear as hoods over 
the windows. A triangular panel in the gable follows the angle of the 
low-pitched roof. The original porch has been removed. 
1 2.0 More closely related to the ideal Italianate spirit are the residences 

The Anglo-Italian Mode 

of irregular masses, asymmetrical planning, and low-pitched hip roofs. 
At times they are L-shaped, having a projection toward the street, as 
represented by the Sage-Robinson-Nagel house at Terre Haute, now Plate 107 

the Historical Museum of the Wabash Valley. Residences of this type 
are so numerous that only a few can be mentioned here. There are 
many in Indianapolis in various stages of disrepair and remodeling, 
the old Byram house at 1828 North Illinois Street being the best pre- 
served. The Gonter-Davis house in Brazil with its recently added porch, Plate 108 
the John Barnes house in Logansport, and the Scott-Cordingly home 
at Clinton are among the many recorded by the author. 

Similar in effect, but so designed as to emphasize a large squarish 
block with a minor side projection, are the Youngman-Becker coun- Plate log 

try home near Kokomo and the President Benjamin Harrison house ."/(jfe lio 

at Indianapolis. Originally a small porch was tucked into the angle 
to the left of the entrance of the Harrison house. Later a large porch 
was built across the front and along part of the south wall. The front 
door is in the main block facing the street. 

Another favored design was that of combining masses or blocks 
of different sizes in an informal way, as seen in Riley's Lockerbie Plate ill 

Street home, Indianapolis, and the Bals-Wocher residence in the same 
city. The central pavilion of these Indianapolis examples are placed 
off-center and suggest lower sections of towers. Porches are set in the 
angles of the blocks, seldom across the entire front; windows tend 
to be curved at the top, and strongly accented lintels or frames give 
them extra prominence; small attic windows alternate with brackets 
under broad eaves; and flat decks crown the hip roofs. 

Projections in the form of bays rather than rectangular blocks 
were popular in one phase of development, as seen on the Coleman- 
Lairy residence at Logansport with its interesting step-back compo- 
sition, and on the Waldron-Frasch home at Lafayette, with two bays, ; 
one on the end, the other on the side. A more ostentatious structure 
of this type is the Guthrie-Pickett home at Tunnelton in Lawrence / ' ., 
County, with conspicuous stone quoins, lacelike iron porch, and 
octagonal tower base or cupola crowned with iron cresting. The 
Gothic windows in the cupola add still another medieval touch to 
the rich ensemble. 1 2 I 



Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

Two bays on the side of a house are less usual than a single bay, 
and when they are incorporated in the design they are usually sym- 
metrically placed toward the ends. This is the composition of the 
Hamilton-Hunter house at Shelbyville which is now the Hotel 
Plate 1 1 6 Hunter and the E. P. Knight house at Lafayette (not illustrated), now 

owned by the Odd Fellows Lodge. 

The use of a gable roof, as opposed to a hip roof, brought about 
a different effect even when floor plans were similar or identical. This 
Plate 1 is evident when one compares the Smith-Cripe house in Kendallville 

with the Terre Haute house above (Plate 107). Modifications are 
evident, to be sure, in the porches and window treatments, but the 
most striking difference is in the roofs and the effects they have on 
the character of the buildings. On the Cripe house the projecting 
block facing the street becomes a gabled facade with triangular peak. 
Plate 118 Others in this Italianate category are the Edwards-Aimone house at 

Plate iig Clinton, the Justice-Puterbaugh home at Logansport, and the rather 

Plate 120 palatial New Albany residence now owned by Fred Stoll. A similar 

but more modest example is also in New Albany (not illustrated), 
belonging to Robert Cade. 
Plate 121 An unusual gable-roof Italianate design was the Drover-Ditzler 

house at Huntington, recently razed, whose floor plan resembled a Y. 
The three radiating units were of equal size, and the entrance was 
built into the angle of the two front wings. The double windows in 
the gabled ends were based on old Italian models, known as Floren- 
tine arched windows or windows in cortile. A similar one can be seen 
on the Kendallville house (Plate 117) and the imposing Edwards- 
Hodges residence, not illustrated here, at Clinton. 

As mentioned previously, a characteristic feature of the Italianate 
style was the tower, a square campanile closely resembling original 
models that appear so frequently in old Italian towns. For most 
builders of the mid-nineteenth century, as well as for historians of 
recent years, this was the distinguishing mark of the Tuscan Villa 
residence. Like the roof of the house itself, the tower roof is almost 
flat, its p^Tamidal shape almost hidden by projecting eaves when 
viewed from the street. 
1 2. Z Unbalanced or nonsymmetrical massing was preferred in design- 

The Anglo-Italian Mode 

ing Tuscan Villas in order to convey more strikingly the architectural 

tendencies of the Middle Ages (as American builders understood 

them) and to cater to the prevailing nineteenth-century desire for 

picturesqueness. The McClelland-Layne home at Crawfordsville is a 

good representative example of this type, with the tower rising from 

the angle of the building. The Sonntag-Kiechle residence at Evans- Plate 12J 

ville is a variant, with its tower protruding from the building rather 

than receding within the mass. Ornamental lintels and a fringed hood 

over the first-floor window enhance the composition. 

Other good examples of the towered Tuscan Villa are the Foel- Plate 124 

linger-Lutes brick residence at Fort Wayne, the Carnahan-Tinsman 
home at Attica, with the tower set at an angle to the main part of the 
building, and the old Kent house at Williamsport. 

Triple windows in the top story of the campanile and heavy, 
elaborate window heads add richness to a design, as the old John P. Plate 125 

Cromie home at New Albany shows. A more ostentatious example 
is at the west edge of Richmond, built in 1875 by David Sutton. It Plate 126 

should be noted that both have their towers in the center of the 
facades and that symmetry has been preserved throughout. 

These houses represent a large number of sedate and tastefully 
designed Tuscan Villas throughout Indiana. A related series differs 
only in roof treatment; namely, in the use of gable roofs rather than 
hip roofs, resulting in gabled projections rather than horizontal 
bracketed cornices flanking the towers. One of the best preserved and 
most handsome in the state is the fine brick Thompson-Sconce resi- Plate I2j 

dence at the edge of Edinburg. Its well-designed tower, projecting 
gabled unit at the left with an attractive bay window, and colonnaded 
porch to the right combine to produce this satisfying effect. Other 
houses of this type include the old Evans place on East Main Street, 
Fort Wayne, the home built by Frank M. Harwood on Eel River 
Avenue in Logansport, and the old DePauw house at New Albany, 
which is now the St. Paul's Episcopal Church Parish House. 

A late and very unusual member of this group is the Fosdick resi- Plate 128 

dence at Liberty. Having been built when the Tuscan Villa was out 
of fashion (1879) and when the so-called Free Classic was becoming 
stylish, it represents a mixture of the two. Superficially it resembles ^ -^ 3 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

the Tuscan Villas discussed above, but actually it is a campanile-like 
tower (only the top portion of which is somewhat authentic) placed 
against the gable end of a typical Free Classic (Neo-Jacobean) house 
of the late seventies and eighties. 

Although the towered Tuscan Villa was usually informal in its 
plan and elevation, several old residences built in this general style 
are strikingly formal and symmetrical, as is seen in those at New 
Albany and at Richmond (Plates 125 and 126). This is due to the 
influences exerted on American architectural designers by Italian Ren- 
aissance buildings, influences which seem to have appeared shortly 
after our zeal for Italian medieval tj^es had reached its zenith. 

This tendency toward axial balance led architects and builders to 
exploit both the Italian and French Renaissance archet^-pes. The 
period in which this tendency seems dominant — from about 1865 to 
1880 — saw the erection of many agreeable and imposing residences in 
the state, which, because of their studied formality, appear more 
sophisticated than their Tuscan cousins discussed above. 

What we will call here the formal Italianate, to distinguish the 
Renaissance-inspired from the medieval, are oblong or cubical blocks, 
usually two stories high and crowned with low-pitched hip roofs and 
projecting eaves. Brackets, of course, are in evidence, and windows 
are treated in a variety of ways, more or less faithful to original Ren- 
Plate i2g aissance models. The old Howard-Patrick house in Indianapolis was 

typical of the medium-sized urban dwelling with three windows 
across the front on the second story and a centered door. Frequently 
Plate ijo the door is placed at the left or right, as was done in the Hoerner- 

Zuttermeister house at Richmond. Two distinctly different treat- 
ments of windows are seen in comparing these two houses, the former 
having round-arched openings, the latter being rectangular with con- 
sole-and-head lintels. Another satisfying design with round-headed 
windows, quoins, and original iron cresting is the Thompson-Coons 
house at Edinburg, on North Pleasant Street (not illustrated). 

Larger houses of this same symmetrical design are as numerous 

throughout the state as the smaller ones. Customarily they have five 

openings across the front on each story and therefore are usually 

12, A, longer in relation to their height than the ones just mentioned. A 

The Anglo-Italian Mode 

few examples will suffice to illustrate these and to show the range of 

individual interpretation within this style in the hands of midwestern 

carpenters and builders. The Tumey-Mathews house in Rising Sun Plate iji 

and the Bachman-Pitman home at Logansport show restraint in their Plate 1J2 

designs and reflect the Renaissance love of order and harmony. The 

Stumpf house, south of Indianapolis, is taller because of the addi- Plate ij^ 

tional attic story. In contrast the Rinehart-Baum residence at Delphi Plate 134 

is longer for its height and is more picturesque with its paired 

windows and ornamental porch. The old DeWitt Fitch house at Plate JJ5 

Lawrenceburg, now the American Legion Post, expresses forcefulness 

and grandeur with its boldly framed attic windows, richly bracketed 

cornice, and tall windows. The two-storied porch is doubtless a later 

addition, detracting somewhat from the nobility of the mass. 

More sumptuous results were achieved in these buildings when 
brackets became more ornate and cornices were enriched by fancy 
attic windows. The Henry G. Olds house, now the Mizpah Temple 
Shrine, at Fort Wayne (not illustrated), and the Mendenhall-Miller Plate 1 j6 

residence, now a mortuary, at Richmond, are noteworthy examples. 

The addition of a slight projection at the center of the facade 
gave a somewhat richer effect to a building, as this Richmond house 
illustrates. This pavilion, as this projection is sometimes called, is 
typical of Renaissance architecture and was, therefore, appropriate 
for American homes designed in the spirit of the old pala^. In the 
case of the Mendenhall-Miller house a classic pediment surmounts 
it, reflecting, but not imitating, a similar architectural device used in 
connection with the Vance-Tousey house in Lawrenceburg (Plate 2). 
A related scheme, but with a curved pediment above, is on the Albert 
E. Fletcher mansion in Indianapolis. Its rich and sturdy character I'late ijy 

results from the blocky quoins, stone balcony, and large brackets. 
Another example, with the pavilion projection terminating in an 
elaborate dormer, is the Eden-Hyde mansion at 1336 North Delaware 
Street in Indianapolis, now owned by Mrs. G. H. A. Clowes and 
Allen W. Clowes (not illustrated). The Earl-Clauser residence, "Earl- 
hurst," on Union Street, Lafayette, has a pavilion that rises beyond 
the roof of the main structure but terminates in its own low-pitched 
roof instead of a tower. 1 2. 5 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

In contrast to the above, several of the large residences do not 
have pediments or other architectural features crowning the pavilions, 
notably the old Muhler home at West Wayne and Fulton streets in 
Plate 1 ,'<•-' Fort Wayne (not illustrated) and the old Heilman house at Evans- 

ville, now a day nursery. The latter is exceptionally sophisticated, 
with its air of noble simplicity and calm. The facade is smooth stone, 
while the side and back faces are brick framed with stone quoins. 

Another Italianate domicile type is the cubical block surmounted 
by a cupola. This cube-and-cupola design was used occasionally in 
the Federal era, but it appears most frequently in the i86o's and 
1870's when brackets and ornamental window heads were fashion- 
able. Characteristic members of this family are the Probasco-Ludlow 
house at Lawrenceburg (not illustrated), the large and imposing 
Plates J ?(p atid 140 Daum-Johnson home at ConnersviUe, and the stately Anson Wolcott 

residence at Wolcott, the latter with portholes in the parapet wall 
above the eaves. Its porch, built in the early 1900's, replaced the 
original smaller one. A very dramatic house of this series was the 
Rockhill-Fleming mansion on West Berry Street in Fort Wayne, 
recently razed, its perpendicular thrust being accentuated by the 
excessively tall windows of the first story. Another, and the most 
Plate 141 embellished of the group, is the Service-Vurpillat house at the east 

edge of New Carlisle. The large and handsome brackets under the 
eaves are echoed on the cupola, the roof of which is crowned with a 
Moorish onion dome. The porch in this case appears to be original 
since its design harmonizes with the rest of the building. 

At this point in our review it might be well to call attention to 
Plate 142 some Italianate houses of exceptional design. First, there is the Beck- 

ner-Nelson house northwest of Arlington in Rush County. At first 
glance it appears to be a Greek Revival building, with square col- 
umns, but the use of brackets under the eaves and large consoles to 
support the front balcony gives it an Italianate flavor. Actually it is 
a transitional piece (as its date, 1853, confirms), revealing the archi- 
tect's attempt to combine the old and new. 

Two other Italianate houses of unusual design, so far as this 

Plate 14? region is concerned, are the Gaff villa, "HiUforest," overlooking the 

126 Plate 144 town of Aurora and the Ohio River, and the Hess-Penn residence 

The Anglo-Italian Mode 

south of Goshen. The former, erroneously dubbed "Steamboat 
Gothic," is basically in the ItaHan Renaissance tradition with its flat 
roof, overhanging eaves braced with modilHons, quoins (made of 
wood) at the corners, and round-arched windows. The semicircular 
porch, surmounted by a cupola or belvedere, resembles a pilothouse. 
The Goshen house is remarkable because of its roof construction: 
four elliptical or bowed cornices and arched-roof surfaces. It is so 
unusual (actually unique in this region) that one cannot help but 
wonder where the builder got his inspiration. 

Before leaving the subject of the Italianate style reference should 
be made to houses in this category with French towers. In contrast 
to the campaniles of the Tuscan Villa variety (Plates 122-27) the 
French towers are topped with imposing roofs usually convex or 
concave in form and inevitably containing dormer windows. This 
combination of an Italian building and a tower based on the mansard 
tradition of France may be regarded as another transition style, a 
movement from the Italianate into the Franco-American — the latter 
being the theme of our next chapter. 

There are many examples of this composite mode in the state. 
The Hoshour-Medsker-Taylor house at Cambridge City and the Plate 145 

McNamee-Eilts house, at Wabash represent contrasting members of Plate 146 

the same family: the former tall and gaunt, and latter thick set and 
richly adorned. It is of interest to note that the Hoshour-Medsker- 
Taylor domicile is of frame construction, and that wood was used 
in imitation of stone in making the quoins and the blocks that form 
the arch of the front entrance. This is the second known house in 
the state "signed" by the builder or architect. A brass plate on the 
base of the newel post bears this engraved inscription, ' Ferd Jones, 
Builder, 1877." Better known is the round brass plate on the top of 
the newel post of the Lanier mansion at Madison (Plate 74) bearing 
Costigan's name. 

Another composite house is the Hendricks-Coburn house at In- 
dianapolis. Here the gable roof appears again, as was noted on the 
Thompson-Sconce house (Plate 127), but a concave French roof, with 
excessively large dormer windows, crowns the tower. Perhaps the most 
pretentious of the group is the large Schenck-Wiseman house over- ^^V 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

looking the town of Vevay. Its stocky tower is surmounted by a convex 
hood and cast-iron cresting, and the main structure is so broken by 
bays and projections that the effect is one of restlessness bordering 
on confusion. Unfortunately, space here does not permit our repro- 
ducing all of these important examples. 

The closing remarks in this chapter demonstrate that the two 
principal architectural movements of the late i86o's and the 1870's 
(the Italianate and the Franco-American) intermingled in many of 
the designs which came from the drafting tables of architects. And 
although this chapter and the next treat the two styles separately, we 
must bear in mind that one did not stop abruptly with the establish- 
ment of the next. Homes designed in the French mansard tradition 
arose on our streets and farms while Italianate villas and cottages 
were still being built. Around the year 1870 one style was apparent- 
ly as popular as the other. 



Franco-American Mode 


THE NEXT MOVEMENT in which American architects 
became engrossed was what is now generally known as the 
French Imperial or French Second Empire. It was not a 
revival in the sense of being a free interpretation of an antique Euro- 
pean style, but rather an adoption with relatively minor modifications 
of a current French movement — a late or baroque stage of Renais- 
sance architecture. The newly completed wing of the Louvre and the 
Hotel de Ville in Paris — rich, exuberant, strong, and expressive — 
made a deep impression on architects in this country and changed the 
course of American building designs for two decades, from about 
1865 to 1885. Styles other than architectural also were being im- 
ported from France during those years and eagerly adopted by Ameri- 
cans who wanted to be fashionable. 

Most of our builders who fell in step with this new and imposing 
architectural statement — which they found appropriate in expressing 
the ambitions and achievements of successful industrialists and busi- 
ness leaders — called it the French Style. Its principal distinguishing 
feature was the mansard roof, pierced by ornamental dormer win- 
dows and sometimes capped with cast-iron balustrades or cresting. 
Brick was the preferred building material, although a few modest 
frame examples are seen in our communities. 

Being a phase of the Renaissance movement, this new French 
style adhered to the classic principle of symmetry, lucidity, and sim- 
plicity of plan, and remained faithful to Renaissance details, such as 
moldings, cornices, and lintels. This applies to houses which we 
might call the purer tj^es, or to houses built by architects who were 
conscientious in their adherence to Renaissance canons. But, as in 
other decades, liberties were taken. 

Here we are subdividing the houses into three groups: the oblong, 

a HI HO 



Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

the oblong with a central projection or pavilion, and the latter house 
with a central tower. Variations of these will be discussed later. 
Plate 147 The Howell-Dare house in northern Franklin County incorpor- 

ates all the features of the severe cubical type. Of brick construction, 
with stone quoins and lintels, well-designed cornice, slate mansard 
roof, and iron cresting, it combines stateliness and vigor without 
being overly opulent. The iron porch echoes the cresting of the roof. 
In this connection it should be pointed out that porches were modest 
in size on houses of this type, seldom becoming more than entrance 
porticoes. Verandas were not used, although in some instances they 
were added in later years — along with the rocking chair. 
Plate 14^' A similar residence, in several respects, is the Gillett-Newman 

home in Evansville. It has three windows across the front instead of 
five, more ornamental lintels over the windows, and richer bracketing 
under the eaves. Its large two-storied iron porch on the front is 
exceptional, a feature that is reminiscent of similar galleries on build- 
ings in New Orleans. The date given for its construction is 1 8 60-61, 
and if this is correct, one suspects that the mansard roof and some 
of the trim were added in the seventies. 

Smaller versions, one story in height, are exemplified by the 
Plate i4g Kilgore-Garber house in Peru which has exceptional charm in scale 

Plate ly. and details, and by the distinctive Hyatt home at Washington. The 

high mansard roof of the latter, as tall as the first story and contain- 
ing remarkably large dormer windows, produces a top-heavy effect. 
The porch, more in keeping with the later Neo-Jacobean movement 
than the Franco-American, helps to give the house a feeling of sta- 
bility, even though it is out of character. The projecting central unit 
or pavilion, tapered to repeat the silhouette of the roof, is an ambi- 
tious feature on so small a building. 

This pavilion brings us to our second group of French mansard 

buildings. Even when slight in projection, it adds richness to the 

formal facade and breaks the plane of the roof, as seen in such 

Plate iji examples as the Fletcher-Wasson house at Indianapolis and the An- 

Plate 1^2 thony Reis residence at Evansville. These two houses are more alike 

in design than is at first apparent; the surface coloration of the latter 

120 — freshly painted bricks and stone quoins — ^is so rich in comparison 

The Franco-American Mode 

to the rather bland tones of the former that their close relationship 
is obscured, particularly in these photographs. 

The persistence of the romantic tendency during the nineteenth 
century resulted in the building of many asymmetrical or informally 
designed residences simultaneously with carefully balanced ones. Pic- 
turesqueness was achieved through the disposition of parts or masses 
more than through the use of enriched details. The use of an L plan 
with a porch tucked into the angle (reminiscent of some Italianate 
designs already illustrated) was a popular way of achieving informal- 
ity without losing the stateliness of the late Renaissance idiom. This 
is seen in the Reitz house at Evansville. Plate i^j 

More varied massing occurs in the old Culbertson-McDonald Plate 1^4 

house at New Albany where a semicircular bay projects toward the 
street from the principal mass to which a secondary block is attached. 
This stepping back of the planes of the building is similar to some 
of the Italianate houses discussed in the last chapter (compare, for 
instance, the Culbertson house with the Coleman, Plate 113). The 
difference lies chiefly in the types of roofs. Informality of plan is 
apparent, also, in the Morris-Butler-Pace house at Indianapolis, where yinre J55 

various shaped openings, porches, and studied irregularity of planes 
help to achieve the desired picturesqueness. 

Similar varied masses and planes were used on the Probasco- riatc ijO 

Morrison-Silver house at Knightstown, and a strong romantic touch 
was achieved, as on the Morris-Butler-Pace house, by adding a prom- 
inent tower, whose mansard roof and dormer windows echo those of 
the main block. 

Nothing contributed more to the ostentation and pomp of a 
mansion, or even to a less pretentious residence, than a tower. This 
we found was true in the case of Italianate buildings, and it certainly 
applies to those of the French Second Empire. In many instances the 
towers were set off-center and the masses that flanked them were un- 
like in size and proportion, producing an informal composition. This 
is seen in the two large residences discussed above. Two more mem- 
bers of this group which deserve recognition are the stately Nisbet- Plate 157 
Koch home at Evansville and the Hayes-Cook place at Lawrence- Plate 158 
burg. A comparison of these will reveal the variety of roofs that I^I 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

surmounted the towers and the picturesque composite of masses. In 
Plate 1 59 contrast to them, the Sample-Hutchison-Little residence at Lafayette 

retained the strict symmetry of the Renaissance. The feehng of 
refined aloofness which it seemed to convey was due to this for- 
mahty plus the restraint in the use of ornamentation. Unfortunately 
it was torn down recently. 

One of the most interesting of this Franco-American group of 
Plate i( houses is the John Matthews stone residence near Ellettsville now 

owned by J. Edwin Culbertson. Its straight sloping mansard roof (in 
contrast to the concave sway of those just described) is pierced by 
large dormers topped by segmental arches; the roof is crowned by a 
chaste cast-iron railing or cresting; and a short tower, with a circular 
window near the top, is almost obscured by a large pedimented classic 
doorway that opens upon a small stone balcony. 

The exterior of the first floor shows a nice relationship of open- 
ings and pilastered wall surfaces, while windows and doors are framed 
with good moldings. Niches near the corners complete the design of 
the facade in a pleasing way, and are unique among private residences 
in this state. 


Indianapolis Star 

425 N. Pennsylvania Street, 
Indianapolis, Marion County. 
Edward Howard original owner, 
Edwin L. Patrick later owner, 
razed, July, 1962. 
Italian Renaissance, 1873. Dietrich 
A. Bohlen architect. (Page 124) 


HOERNER-ZUTTERMEISTER HOUSE. 37 S. Fourth Street, Richmond, 
Wayne County. David J. Hoerner original owner, Henry Zuttermeister later owner. 
United Ancient Order of Druids present owner. 
Italianate, c. 1870. (Page 124) 


Carolyn E. MrManaman 

TUMEY-MATHEWS HOUSE. 310 S. High Street, Rising Sun, Ohio County. 
Percy Tiuney former owner, Mrs. Pearl Mathews present owner. 
Italianate, c. 1865. (Page 125) 


BACH MAN-PITMAN HOUSE. 901 E. Market Street, Logansport, Cass County. 
Harry Bachman original owner, estate of Edward E. Pitman present owner. 
Italianate, c. 1855. George W. Bevan architect and builder. (Page 125) 


STUMPF HOUSE. 3225 S. Meridian Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. 

George Stumpf original owner, Frank L. Stumpf present owner. 
Italianate, c. 1855. (Page 125) 


RINEHART-BAUM HOUSE. 121 W. Front Street, Delphi, Carroll Count)'. 
Enoch Rinehart original owner, Mrs. Isabel Baum present owner. 
Italianate, 1858. (Page 125) 

Carolyn E. McManaman 


FITCH HOUSE. W. High Street, Lawrenceburg, Dearborn County. 
DeWitt Fitch original owner, American Legion present owner. 
Italianate, 1868. (Page 125) 

MENDENHALL-MILLER HOUSE. 222 N. Tenth Street, Richmond, Wayne County. 
A. W. Mendenhall original owner, John F. Miller later owner, 
Stegall-Berheide-Orr Mortuary present owner. Italianate, 1870. (Page 125) 


Indianapolis Star 


ALBERT E. FLETCHER HOUSE. 1121 N. Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. 
Albert E. Fletcher orii;inal owner, Michael Clune later owner, Harley L. Horton present owner, 
occupied by LaRue's Club. Italianate (Renaissance), 1873-74. Joseph Curzon architect. (Page 125) 

HEILMAN HOUSE. 611 First Avenue, Evansville, Vanderburgh County. 
William Heilman original owner, St. Vincent's Day Nurser}' present owner. 
Ital.ianate (Renaissance type), 1869. Henrj' Mursinna architect. (Page 126) 

DAUM-JOHNSON HOUSE. S. Vine Street, Connersville, Fayette County. 
John W. Daum former owner, Benjamin F. Johnson present owner. 
Itahanate, c. i860. (Page 126) 


WOLCOTT HOUSE. N. Range Street, Wolcott, White County. 

Anson Wolcott original owner, Roger Wolcott later owner, Princeton Township present owner. 

Italianate, i860. T. Tilly architect. (Page 126) 



SERVrCE-VURPILLAT HOUSE. East Michigan Street, New Carlisle, St. Joseph County. 
J. H. Service original owner, F. J. Vurpillat present owner. 
Italianate, c. 1870. (Page 126) 

BECKNER-NELSON HOUSE. U. S. 52 west of Arlington. Rush County. 
Jeremiah Beckner original owner, John W. Nelson present owner. 
Classic-Italianate, 1853. J. T. Smith architect. (Page 126) 


Charles Driver 

GAFF-STARK HOUSE, "Hillforest." 213 Fifth Street, Aurora, Dearborn Count)-. 

Thomas Gaff original owner, Agnes Howe and WilHam E. Stark later owners, Hillforest Historical 

Foundation present owner. Italianate, 1852—56. (Pages 126-27) 



2309 S. Main Street, 

Goshen, Elkhart Count}\ 

Elias Hess origmal owner, 

Ralph S. Peon present owner. 

Italianate, 1859. (Pages 126-27) 



315 S. Walnut Street, Cambridge City, Wayne County. 

Samuel H. Hoshour original owner, 

William F. Medsker later owner, 

Wilmer W. Taylor present owner. 

Italianate, 1877. Ferd Jones master builder. 

(Page 127) 


MCNAMEE-EILTS HOUSE. 208 W. Hill Street, Wabash, Wabash County. 
Henry H. McNamee original owner, Vern Roberts later owner, 
Ted Eilts present owner. Italianate towered, 1870. (Page 127) 

F. P. NELSON HOUSE. Greencastle, 
now owned by De Pauw University, 
1878. Note Italianate tower. 


HOWELL-DARE HOUSE. Liberty Pike, north of Brookville, Franklin County. 
Isaac C. Howell original owner, W. Keith Dare and Macel Dare present owners. 
French mansard, 1883. (Page 130) 


GILLETT-NEWMAN HOUSE. 706 S. E. First Street, Evansville. 

Vanderburgh County. Simeon P. Gillett original owner, 

Mr. and Mrs. Alan Newman present owners. French mansard, 1860-70. (Page 130) 

Ine^ Twitchell 


David W. Peat 

I "^^^ 'K-:^ 

KILGORE-GARBER HOUSE. 60 E. Third Street, Peru, Miami County. 
W. W. Kilgore original owner, Mrs. David R. Garber present owner. 
French mansard, 1865-70. (Page 130) 


HYATT HOUSE. 608 E. Main Street, Washington, Daviess County. 
Hiram Hyatt original owner, Mrs. Harry V. Hyatt present owner. 
French mansard, 1880. J. W. Gaddis architect. (Page 130) 


LHTCHER-WASSON HOUSE. 1116 N. Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. 
Stephen K. Fletcher original owner, Hiram P. Wasson later owner, Arthur Jordan Foundation present owner. 
French mansard, 1876. John Stem architect. (Page 130) 

REIS HOUSE. 704 First Avenue, Evansville, Vanderburgh County. 
Anthony Reis original owner, now St. Anthony's Catholic Church rectory. 
French mansard, 1872. (Pages 130-31) 



REITZ HOUSE 224 S. E. First Street, Evansville, Vanderburgh County. 
Francis J. Reitz former owner, Catholic Diocese of Evansville present owner. 
French mansard, 1871. (Page 131) 

HOUSE. 914 E. Main Street, 
New Albany, Floyd County. 
W. S. Culbertson original owner, 
John S. McDonald later owner, 
American Legion present owner. 
French Second Empire, 1867. 
William and James T. Banes 
carpenter-builders. (Page 131) 



MORRIS-BUTLER-PACE HOUSE. 1204 N. Park Avenue, Indianapolis, 

Marion County. John D. Morris original owner. Noble C. Butler later owner, Robert 

M. Pace present owner. French mansard, 1859-62. D. A. Bohlen architect. (Page 131) 

130 McCullum Street, 
Knightstown, Henry County. 
Ralph Probasco original owner, 
John I. Morrison later owner, 
Mrs. Ralph Silver present owner. 
French mansard, c. 1870. 
(Page 131) 



NISBET-KOCH HOUSE. 310 S. E. First Street, Evansville, Vanderburgh County/"'^ ^'^"'*'" 
W. F. Nisbet original owner, Louis J. Koch present owner. 
French mansard, c. 1875. (Page 131) 

HAYES-COOK HOUSE. 421 Ridge Road, Lawrenceburg (Greendale), Dearborn County. 

Ezra G. Hayes original owner, A. D. Cook and Mrs. Robert Nanz later owners, Church 

of Christ present owner. French mansard, c. 1865-70. Hannaford and Hannaford architects. (Page 131) 

Carolyn E. McManaman 



HOUSE. 311 S. Ninth Street, 

Lafayette, Tippecanoe County. 

Robert W. Sample original owner, 

Paul N. Hutchison later owner, 

Walter G. Little last owner. 

French mansard, 

1865-66. Razed. (Page 132) 


MATTHEWS-CULBERTSON HOUSE. Matthews Road, Ellettsville, Monroe County. 
John Matthews original owner, J. Edwin Culbertson present owner. 
French mansard, c. 1870. (Page 132) 


The Neo-Jacobean Mode 


THE NEXT architectural style to appear on the American 
scene was derived from what was termed in England the 
Queen Anne Revival or the Free Classic style. It developed 
abroad in the first part of the 1870's and reached our shores about 
1876. Its initiator was Richard Norman Shaw, of London, who, like 
the other architects of the time, saw in the English buildings of the 
first decade of the eighteenth century (when Queen Anne ruled) an 
agreeable amalgamation of medieval or Tudor elements with classic 
Renaissance ones. This transitional style had strong appeal in the 
1870's when there was a tendency to achieve more order and sobriety 
in designing civic and domestic architecture, while retaining a certain 
amount of freedom and individuality of expression as well as a touch 
of romantic ardor. 

The Queen Anne designation was appropriate for buildings 
erected by the first architects who adopted this style because they 
remained close to the original models. But in less than a decade the 
picture had changed. Striving for originality and relying less on his- 
toric antecedents, the next group of architects — particularly those in 
America — contrived houses that had little to do with those of the 
days of the good Queen. In fact, as we study their architectural fea- 
tures today, it is evident that most of them belong to the late English 
medieval architectural vocabulary'— late Tudor, principally — with 
other elements such as French and Flemish added. For this reason the 
Queen Anne designation soon lost its validity, leading Norman Shaw 
and others to use the term 'Tree Classic," and inducing still others 
to suggest 'Tree Jacobean," "Modified English Style," "American 
Vernacular" and "Modern American Renaissance" (when the move- 
ment took hold in this country), "American Craftsmen Style," and 
"Eastlake." The last, named for Charles Locke Eastlake, English 




'•' — II— (■■J- 


Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 


architect of the time (a man primarily interested in furniture and 
interior design), was an inappropriate term because no architectural 
works by him were sufficiently well known in this country to serve as 
models; and matters became so confused in the i88o's (they are no 
better today) that no one could say exactly when a building was 
Queen Anne Revival in style and when it was Eastlake. 

For this reason, and because the movement we are now consider- 
ing was as vigorous and valid as any of those of the nineteenth 
century (and no more derivative), it seems reasonable to rechristen 
it 'Neo-Jacobean." This has merit in that it implies the use of archi- 
tectural elements that were in vogue earlier than the reign of Queen 
Anne — which is true — and because it might do away with the con- 
fusion which has persisted for at least eighty years over the terms 
Queen Anne Revival and Eastlake. 

So much for designations. What characterizes the style? 

In plan, elevation, fenestration, and in silhouette it reveals a 
striving for an independent and creative statement based on studied 
informality. The floor plan tends to be an irregular square, with 
slightly projecting sections or bays, and with rather freely arranged, 
but not impractical, rooms. It is of interest to note that this is typical 
of late medieval English houses, exteriors of which reflect shapes and 
positions of rooms in contrast to the classical scheme of arranging 
rooms within cubical boxes. Emphasis is on a new type of stair hall, 
which is more like a room than the Colonial axial passageway. 

Projecting sections give exteriors a complex and plastic character 
unlike any of the preceding nineteenth-century styles, a complexity 
which is heightened, as seen from the outside, by the variety of 
openings and the diversity of wall treatments. Added to this is the 
irregular contour of the roof with its many gables, dormers, and 
prominent chimneys, features stemming from Tudor or Jacobean 
prototypes found in England and on the Continent. 

The earlier expressions of this movement are houses built on the 
simple L plan, a rectangular block with a projection toward the 
street. Gable roofs of medium pitch were used, but hip roofs for 
the main block of the houses were more in vogue. Since, basically, 
this is not an unusual architectural design, wall and gable treatments 

The Neo-Jacohean M.^de 

of a special kind were used to make the house conform to this new 
styhstic family, as we shall see. 

More typically Neo-Jacobean than the L plan above is the irregu- 
lar square with gabled projections and bays. The roof of this type is 
hipped at front and back (a most unusual custom so far as the history 
of architecture is concerned) instead of at the lateral ends. When 
viewed from the street, the roof appears to be pyramidal (the ridge 
is short) from which gables and dormers project. Other characteristic 
features, such as treatment of windows and richness of wall surfacing, 
are better understood when we examine and compare the illustrations 
of the houses themselves shown herein. 

A good example of the Neo-Jacobean frame residence based on 
the L plan is the Clevenger-McConaha house at Centerville. The 
projeaing gable at right is undecorated except for cut, ornamented 
shingles and a pair of attic windows. The base of the triangular gable 
flares out to form a skirt or hood over the second-story window. 
Small panes of diamond-shaped and square glass are seen in the 
windows in keeping with the old English tradition; and the comers 
of the projection at the right are beveled below the gable to suggest 
a bay. Shapes and sizes of windows throughout reveal a planned and 
studied informality. 

Greater richness of roof contour was achieved in the Hanson- 
Dowden house in Indianapolis, which is now the headquarters of the 
Iron Workers Local Union No. 22. The gable roof with a deck on 
top has been hipped at the ends to increase the variety of planes; a 
secondary gable projects from the north hip, at right, beside which a 
prominent banded chimney rises; and a dormer breaks the front slope. 
The projection toward the street, at left, has a characteristic gable 
ornament derived from medieval roof braces, a decorative motif 
which is repeated in all the gables of the house, large and small. 
Window dressings, too, are based on English Tudor models. 

A relatively simple and lucid example of a residence with its main 
roof hipped at front and back, as described above, is the Daugherty 
Tobian house at Shelbyville. There are numerous similar houses 
throughout the state, an exceptionally attractive one being the Wees- 
ner-Talbert residence on West Hill Street in Wabash. Here, again. 

Plate 161 

Plate 162 

Plate 163 

Plate 164 


Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

the principal roof appears to be a pyramid, though it actually has a 
short ridge running from front to back. The front gable has a band of 
ornamentally cut shingles (based on old English tile hanging) sepa- 
rating the second and third stories, as well as horizontal and vertical 
boards that divide the outer wall into panels, suggesting half-timber 
construction. As on many houses of this type the ornamental shingles 
were cut to form various patterns: fish scale, diaper, and so forth. The 
pseudo half-timber technique, sometimes called banding and panel- 
ing, was used on numerous residences of the eighties and nineties. 

It might be mentioned at this point that while this is an imita- 
tion of medieval timber construction, it is not as superficial as it might 
appear. The boards are not nailed over the clapboards or siding. The 
"timbers," about an inch and a half thick, were nailed to the studding 
and the clapboards were then cut to fit into the spaces between. 

The Shelby ville house has one corner of the front projection 
beveled or cut away to form a small porch or lookout, and a large 
second-story porch has been set into the ell. The lower half of the 
bargeboard is scalloped to relieve its plainness. Dormers in the main 
roof and a second projection at the side of the house produce the kind 
of varied silhouette sought by the architects of the period. 
Plate 165 Similar, but with another treatment of the gable face, is the Gil- 

more residence at Greencastle, now owned by DePauw University. 
The lacy bargeboard, gable panels, and porch screens (between the 
tops of the posts) enrich an otherwise plain house. A single banded 
chimney rises from the center of the roof in contrast to the multiple 
chimneys of some other houses in this series. 

Basically, this house is very similar to the Shelbyville one, above, 
except that the front gable projection has been moved from right to 
left and the beveling of the corners of the projection, seen at the side 
of the building, forms a bay on the first story. 
Plate 166 A more elaborate member of this group is the Wilson-Beck house 

at Washington. Richness has been achieved by scroll-saw ornaments 
on the gables — including the one at the peak of the hip roof — and 
through the use of elaborate brackets, porch railing, and soffit grilles 
between veranda posts — the last featuring halved cart wheels. This 
1 52 last ornamental device is found on several residences of this region. 

The Neo-Jacohean Mode 

Here, again, we find one of the most characteristic features of 
many Neo-Jacobean houses; namely, the beveHng of the corners of the 
projection toward the street, thus creating a bay. Ornamental brackets, 
containing whole cart wheels, support the lower ends of the gable roof, 
which in turn form hoods over the second-floor windows in the 
diagonal walls. The richness of the fret work and grilles, together with 
the restless contour of the building, is entirely in line with the taste 
and ideals of the times, as are the tall, banded and paneled chimneys 
that add to the irregularity of the silhouette. 

Although less showy, the WoodfiU-Robbins house at Greensburg l^latc lOj 

possesses many of the same features, including the beveled projection 
under the gable to form a bay. It lacks the carpenter's lace in the apex 
of the gable but shows instead a simple roof truss, which is nonfunc- 
tional. While the total effect is rich, it is unified in composition and 
rather charming in scale and pattern. 

The important role played by the front porch or veranda is graph- 
ically illustrated by most of the houses discussed in this section. Frail 
posts, joined at the top by a grille of turned spindles and at the bottom 
by a railing, give the effect of lightness and airiness, as well as an 
impression of warm and unaffected hospitality, unlike the solemn and 
pompous mien of some other types. The Kitselman house in Muncie, Plate 168 

now owned by Curtis Rector, shows another porch treatment, with 
curving brackets between posts and a pergola at the corner. Combining 
a garden arbor or pergola with a veranda was not unusual at the time. 

The Hill-Phillips home at Plymouth has a cross-shape floor plan, "' i6g 

which is unusual, and a roof that is very complex with its multiple 
slopes and gables. The perforated gable ornament is unusually large 
and rich, as are the hoods over the diagonal faces of the bay beneath. 
So massive a roof on a story-and-a-half house gives the impression 
that the walls are struggling to support excessive weight. Nevertheless, 
the cottage has a quaint charm. 

Turning again to the full two-storied residences, we find several 
in the state that push complexity and variety to the farthest point, yet 
stay within the general mold of the Neo-Jacobean architectural system. 
The Wood-Royse-Speisshofer house, for instance, at Warsaw is fun- P/iifc 1 jo 

damentally the same house as the Shelbyville example, Plate 163. The ^ 5 3 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

only new feature is the small diagonally placed gable at the left front 
comer. The principal gable projection at the right is considerably 
richer in its alternating black and white areas (solids and voids) as is 
the main block of the house with its complexity of porches, verandas, 
balconies, and so forth. This is a late example, having been built only 
six years before the turn of the century. 

An equally rich and complicated architectural composition is the 

Plate 1 , Redmond-Healy home at Logansport. The restlessness of dormers, 

porch and balcony posts, and window frames gives it a decidedly ani- 
mated character. It will be noticed by the reader that the protruding 
gable and balcony at the right is smaller than that of the Warsaw house 
above, but that the gabled projection placed diagonally at the front 
left corner is larger. 

Plate 172 The Hignite-Wendel house at Columbus is even livelier with its 

white window frames, belt courses, and filigree-like porch ornaments. 
The horseshoe arch on the second floor is a Moorish or East Indian 
feature, as is the general effect of the grille work, all of which reminds 
us that the American verandas were inspired by those of the East Indies. 
The interest taken by architects in Moorish and Oriental details dur- 
ing the last quarter of the nineteenth century is not only reflected in 
such houses as this but also is seen in the architectural magazines of 
the time, where special illustrated articles on exotic styles appeared at 
frequent intervals. The sunburst over the central projection of a porch 
was a popular decorative motif throughout this period. 

The basic plan of this house in Columbus does not differ mate- 
rially from such a house as that shown on Plate 164. The gabled 
projection at the left, facing the street, has been partially sliced 
away to allow for the second-floor porch and observatory' tower. The 
left corner has been beveled to form a balcony on the second story. 
A pleasant pattern of light and dark has resulted in the use of belt and 
sill courses that encircle the building at different levels, and the presence 
of elaborate grilles and railings. 

A brick version of the Neo-Jacobean house is well illustrated by 

Plate 173 the Indianapolis residence now owned by Dohrman Swearingen, with 

its use of gray stone blocks and bands contrasting with red bricks. This 

I ^ A feature is regarded as a Victorian Gothic touch, particularly when the 

The Neo-Jacohean Mode 

openings terminate in pointed arches. The bold and attractive gable 
ornaments are based on the old English hammer beam roof trusses, 
which are used here for decorative purpose only. 

The medieval English influence took on a slightly different aspect 
in many of the brick urban residences that called for greater restraint 
and more sedate character. This is seen in the Sowder house at Indian- Plate 1 74 

apolis, a brick building which, while revealing the basic Neo-Jacobean 
elements which we have been discussing, has not the textured walls and 
open-work ornamentation so typical of wooden houses. The Tudor 
masonry gable has been substituted for that of frame construction; 
and other kinds of medieval motifs were used, such as the castellate 
ornament over the windows in the front gable, the square false 
turrets at the sides of these windows, the square porch posts with 
Romanesque capitals, and a general effect of sturdy massiveness. 

Closely related is the Schmidt-Schaf house at Indianapolis, now Pwfe 1 75 

the Propylaeum. The floor plan and orientation of the building are 
different from the Sowder house, but both stem from early English 
models. Use of modeled terra cotta panels in the peak of the gables 
and on the stone bands adds richness, as do the capitals of the Roman- 
esque columns of the porch and the sculptural work around the front 
door. A square tower seen around the corner at the right does not have 
a prominent part in the total composition. 

Closer in plan to the frame residences previously described is the 
Emery-Ayres house in brick and stone at Indianapolis, with its early Plate 176 

English bargeboard on the gabled section at the left. The chimneys 
with their vertical divisions are effective, two of which ascend on the 
outer faces of the north and south walls of the building. The large 
bay at right, balancing the gable, has a dormer in its roof and the round 
tower around the corner terminates in a conical roof which gives 
variety to the skyline. The stone belt and sill courses encircling the 
building add decorative distinction to the whole. 

Another Indianapolis house, the Tate-Willis residence, of brick Plate 1 77 

and stone, is designed with a smaller tower rising from a bay near the 
left corner, adjoining the gable. The Palladian window in the gable 
and the three-part Tudor window below it combine Renaissance and 
old English motifs. ^55 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 


Plate 178 The large Rogers-Krieger house at Michigan City, also built of 

brick, is an interesting example of a design that eliminates the project- 
ing gable while stressing the bold, square tower. Simple rectilinear 
shapes and restraint in the use of ornament result in an architectural 
work of great dignity. 

The addition of towers or turrets became common practice among 
American architects who worked in this idiom, although original 
Queen Anne Revival buildings by Richard Norman Shaw did not 
have them. In nearly all of our native examples the tower is at one end, 
rather than centered, in keeping with the desire to attain asymmetry 
Plate 1 7g and picturesqueness, as seen in the Dale-Zook house at Goshen. This 

tower is octagonal, but, as shown in following illustrations, round and 
square ones were equally popular. 
Plate 180 The octagonal tower of the Knightstown house owned by Fred- 

erick W. Frazier is exceptionally attractive with its panels of carved 
designs (known as "molded" patterns because the original late-medi- 
eval ones were molded in plaster) related to the ornamental treatment 
of the rest of the house. Additional richness has been gained by metal 
cresting, an octagonal cupola, and a spindle canopy or soffit band be- 
tween porch posts on both stories. 

Another imposing example is the Churchman house at Beech 
Grove southeast of Indianapolis. The octagonal "observation" tower 
assumes greater importance because of its height; and the complex roof 
treatment, together with dormers, chimneys, and iron cresting, attains 
the height of picturesqueness sought by most architects of the period. 
In keeping with this skyline complexity the mass of the house itself is 
varied, with projected and recessed blocks and planes. 

The Orr-Richter brick mansion in La Porte County has a tower 
that is placed in a central position, but the gable at left with its rich 
ornament has no counterpart at right. The use here of pointed arches 
over the windows is in keeping with the second or Victorian Gothic 
movement that became popular at the time, principally for civic and 
religious buildings. A similar residence of frame construction in 
Plate 18^ La Porte, built by John H. Fildes, is so similar in design and orna- 

mentation (although it lacks Gothicized windows) that it appears to 
be the work of the same architect. 


The Neo-Jacobean Mode 

A frame house, more in the Swiss (or Scandinavian) manner so far 
as the tower is concerned, is the Perrin-Steill home at Lafayette. Its Pf-nr ' >■ i 

gable ornament, based on hammer beam trusses of old English roof 
construction, is very imposing. It will be noticed that the imitation 
half-timber construction has been used here as on some of the examples 
cited previously. 

The tendency toward the end of the century to design houses with 
greater restraint and to achieve added symmetry, changed the appear- 
ance of many residences, even when designed in the Neo-Jacobean 
idiom. For instance, the Smith-Kielsmeier house at Rochester is of Plate iS^ 

greater sobriety without entirely abandoning a free and informal 
design. The tower here has been reduced to a turret, and wall surfaces 
are plainer. Although shingles were often used on the faces of gables 
throughout the Neo-Jacobean period, their use to sheathe large ex- 
panses of walls— and sometimes the whole house — was a peculiarity 
of the nineties. This treatment was especially popular among archi- 
tects who designed seashore cottages in the East. 

The gable, which heretofore has been placed at one side, now caps 
the whole facade, its triangular area divided into three horizontal sec- 
tions by two flaring skirts. The large arched and recessed porch on the 
second floor, the medieval turret, and the strong inclination toward 
restraint are influences which were being brought to bear on domestic 
architecture by the new Romanesque Revival movement. 



The French Romanesque 


r HE NEO -JACOBEAN movement, as we have seen, was 

I essentially a free interpretation of late medieval English 
houses, even if some of our architects of the time did not 
realize this in their belief that they were making original creations in 
keeping with the popular trend of their day. The movement we will 
now consider was basically French medieval in inspiration. It paral- 
leled the former and reached its height of popularity in the 1890's. In 
the case of large civic and commercial structures the style has come to 
be known as Richardson Romanesque, named for Henry Hobson 
Richardson, the outstanding architectural designer associated with this 
late nineteenth-century movement. 

A careful analysis of buildings, public and private, in our American 
cities leads to the conclusion that during the last two decades of the 
century' most residences were Neo-Jacobean (or, as we have noted, 
what used to be called Queen Anne and Eastlake), and most public 
buildings were interpretations of the French Romanesque. The reason 
for this seems to be that the inspiration for the former came largely from 
old English cottages, which are pre-eminently symbols of domestic 
charm and livability in most people's minds, while inspiration for 
the latter stemmed from ponderous and not infrequently fearsome 
prototypes which were better adapted to courthouses, office buildings, 
and schools than to private dwellings. Most medieval buildings, 
whether castles or abbeys, were built to serve as fortifications when the 
need arose, which accounts for their redoubtable and massive appear- 
ance and for the use of large blocks of stone. 

The relatively few homes that one can now classify as Romanesque 
Revival in style are, as they should be, large, bold, and ponderous. 
They are usually built of rough or rusticated blocks of stone, present- 
ing formidable exteriors to the passer-by, and never lacking a heavy 

The French Romanesque Mode 

round tower crowned with a cone-shaped roof. Windows are severely 
plain, square, or round headed, deprived of ornate lintels, and aligned 
rather symmetrically along the walls; doors are sometimes framed 
with Romanesque moldings; and porch pillars are inevitably stocky, 
recapturing in design and proportion what they can of their medieval 
predecessors. Porches resemble old arcades or cloisters, and are diamet- 
rically opposed to the frail verandas seen on Neo-Jacobean houses of 
the same period. 

Towers and turrets reflect their original medieval functions; name- 
ly, means of defense. In this respect they have a very different character 
when compared to the towers discussed in previous chapters of this 
book. Along with towers, architects of the late nineteenth century 
borrowed other elements such as battlements and machicolations 
(projecting parapets supported by corbels and having openings 
between the corbels through which defenders could drop missiles 
upon their assailants). 

While the massing of most Romanesque Revival houses is simple 
and lucid — resulting from a conscious effort on the part of architects 
to attain straightforward and "honest" results —there is, nevertheless, 
much that is romantic in conception and execution. This is especially 
true with regard to composite styles (Neo-Jacobean combined with 
Romanesque Revival) and to types based on French chateaux. 

A new composite type was achieved during those decades by 
placing a Neo-Jacobean roof and tower on a Romanesque block. The 
Seiberling-Kingston house at Kokomo, now owned by Indiana Uni- 
versity, is a striking example of this. Walls are built of rough stnne 
and brick, strong Romanesque arches support the porch floor and cap 
the windows, and two strong circular bays suggest bases of medieval 
towers. But the frail porch, complex roof treatment, and bell-shaped 
cap on the tower show the persistence of the Neo-Jacobean influence. 
The arcade in the tower, with heavy round arches on fragile columns, 
should be compared to the arcaded porches on some of the houses that 
follow, and that are more typically Romanesque Revival. 

A less complex, and perhaps more satisfying, design is the Porter- 
Kerrigan residence at Michigan City. It is more closely related to the 
French Romanesque trend than the above example, due to the rather 





A, Battlement 

B, Machicolations 

Plate 186 

i'Lilc 1S7 


Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

authentic design of its tower. Although it retains a varied skyHne of 
dormers, roof peaks, and chimneys, and while its porch has the airy 
lightness of the Neo-Jacobean, its total effect is strongly Romanesque 
— without, however, the use of heavy stone walls. 

One is tempted to divide houses of the Romanesque Revival style 
into two categories: the chateau type and, for lack of a better name, 
the abbey type. The former are not numerous in Indiana. An early and 
Plate 1 88 rather unique one is the large Cox-Stewart brick and stone residence at 

Indianapolis built in 1875-76. Its main mass is similar to late Italianate 
designs, especially in the treatment of windows and use of brackets 
under wide eaves; but the pyramidal roofs on the dormers and the steep 
hip roof of the main tower, are northern French or perhaps Flemish in 
origin, judging by existing examples in that region. 
Plate idg Two years earlier Hervey Bates, Jr., built his grand mansion, also 

at Indianapolis, which must have been inspired by the majestic cha- 
teaux of the Loire Valley. Towers and gables spring from a steep main 
roof, creating a varied and animated silhouette; windows are capped by 
alternating light and dark blocks (stone and brick), dormers appear in 
the roofs of the towers, and stone stringcourses attempt to tie the 
restless forms together. Here, as on the Cox-Stewart house, pseudo 
machicolations are used under the eaves as well as under the tims of 
conical tower roofs. Heavy posts and arches of the front entrance and 
carriage porch are in character with early French medieval structures. 

The second type of American domestic Romanesque is more usual 
in our cities. Whether built of stone or brick, it assumes the form of 
a cubical mass, capped with a hip roof; a large round fortresslike tower 
stands at one comer, balanced by what we are calling here a Tudor 
gable; the entrance is between them, beyond an arcaded porch. 

The HuU-Wiehe home at Fort Wayne is a characteristic example 
Piate iQ of this type in stone. The Taylor-Zent house at Huntington is almost 

the same design carried out in brick. A comparison of these with the 
typical Neo-Jacobean dwelling discussed in the last chapter shows how 
much more restrained and sober they are, both m relationship of archi- 
tectural forms and in the matter of silhouette or skyline. The tower of 
the Taylor-Zent building is particularly reminiscent of medieval ones, 
160 with its small paired windows on the top level, a wide collar dividing 

The French Romanesque Mode 

the two upper floors, and unframed windows based on medieval pro- 
totypes throughout. A well-proportioned arcaded entrance ties the 
tower to the gabled projection on the right. 

More symmetrical and harmonious than any of the preceding 
buildings is the large Vaughan-Reath double house at Richmond. Its , z,,^^, j q , 

balanced twin towers, centrally located dormer and porch pediment, 
and symmetrically arranged windows reveal the strong tendency on the 
part of architects at the close of the nineteenth century to return to a 
more disciplined and classic approach to designing homes as well as 
public buildings. 

The extreme in midwestern Romanesque expression is reached in 
the Clement Studebaker mansion at South Bend, with its air of inde- Plate ig3 

structibility and proud defiance. Irregular, nondressed stones set in 
concrete form its walls; rough stones form its arches and frame its 
windows (even the transoms and mullions are stone bars); and out of a 
complex roof arise sturdy chimneys. 

The large gables facing west are more Tudor than French Roman- 
esque, and the square tower at left is basically Neo-Jacobean, except 
for its turretlike bay. However, a round tower in the rear (not seen in 
this picture) is definitely Romanesque, as are the arches with their 
rough stone voussoirs (wedge-shaped blocks used in 3, series to form 
the arches) and clustered Romanesque colonettes supporting them. 

The Romanesque Revival movement expired soon after 1900. One 
of the last which can be dated is the SchnuU-Rauch house, 3050 North 
Meridian Street, Indianapolis, built in 1903 for Gustav A. Schnull. 

Residences such as those discussed in this chapter are more to be 
admired for their expression of the strong individuality of their 
designers than for their faithfulness to original medieval examples. 
Their vigorous compositions mirror the people who both conceived 
and lived in them. If they appear to us today somewhat ostentatious 
and lacking in fine artistic discernment, it is because we live in a differ- 
ent cultural atmosphere and find it hard to comprehend that in which 
former generations lived. 

The Romanesque Revival, as a movement, was flexible and chal- 
lenging, and like all artistic endeavors it had its strong initiators and 
weak imitators. It was basically a sound and significant architectural I 6 1 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

idiom, but difficult to use in designing residences. Old fortified Euro- 
pean mansions were not intended to convey an impression of warm 
and homey domesticity. 

Interiors of Neo-facohean and Romanesque Revival Houses 

It is difficult to summarize the interior designs of residences built 
during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. Frequently the 
aim of architects and clients was to suggest, if not to imitate, such 
historical styles as the Elizabethan, Jacobean, ot Louis XV. But the 
people who wanted to be up-to-date were adopting the ideas of 
Charles Locke Eastlake, whom we referred to in a previous chapter, 
the author of a treatise on Hints on Household Taste. 

Eastlake advocated an honest use of materials, good craftsmanship, 
and originality of design, in an attempt to counteract the extravagant 
and lavish interiors of his day. Not only were people surrounding 
themselves with the strangest and most exotic decorative objects 
that could be found, but samplings of furniture representing different 
historical styles were thrown together in their rooms. A writer for the 
American Architect and Building News of 1876 referred to it as an age of 
novelties, and said that a room might contain "a Louis Quatorze 
cabinet, a Louis Quinze buffet, a Venetian mirror, a chest from 
Nuremberg, a Dutch clock, Pompeian mantel ornaments, Persian rugs, 
Turkish divans, and chairs in pairs gathered in out-of-the-way places 
from Geneva to Madrid." He failed to mention the inevitable odds 
and ends that came to be known as whatnots or bric-a-brac. 

But these items have to do with decoration rather than interior de- 
sign. The latter, more in line with the theme of our book on architec- 
ture, consists of constructional elements such as doors and windows, 
moldings and paneling, floors and ceilings, stairways and mantelpieces. 

Excluding imitative or exotic fads, it is safe to say that the tend- 
ency of the last quarter of the century' was to emphasize woods of high 
quality and of contrasting colors, and to show the greatest possible 
skill in carving them. Oak, walnut (black walnut), and ebonized wood 
apparently were the most popular, although many others were used. 
I O 2r Combinations devised to produce variations of color and grain were 

The French Romanesque Mode 

favored over one kind of wood throughout the interior, particularly 
in the composition of mantelpieces and stairways. In addition to being 
carved — either in the incised intaglio method or in relief — the wooden 
members were frequently inlaid. 

The average door and window of the period were framed in a rela- 
tively plain way, jambs and top rails being a series of moldings mitred 
at the top corners. In better houses a paneled dado or wainscot would 
be used in the hall, and perhaps in the dining room and library. Other- 
wise it was customary to hang paper, richly colored and boldly pat- 
terned, on the walls. The tops of walls terminated with an elaborate 
frieze and cornice in the grand houses, but patterned bands of papers 
served as cornices in the majority of cases. 

Stair halls were large squarish rooms, and unlike Colonial or 
Federal houses, they did not extend the full width of the building. 
The stairways were usually heavy in appearance, if not massive, with 
large newel posts, thick balusters, and handrails. Plate 1 71 

Mantelpieces were admittedly the principal decorative feature 
among interior constructional elements. Their most marked peculiar- 
ity, when compared to mantelpieces of previous decades of the nine- 
teenth century, was the large and elaborate over-mantel construction, 
rising from the mantel shelf to the ceiling, and incorporating a large 
beveled mirror, sometimes shelves at the sides for books or bric-a- 
brac, and carved ornamentation. In the costly manorial residences they 
became unbelievably elaborate and complex. Decorated tiles framed 
the fireplace openings. A restrained example was in the Boyd-Love 
residence in Indianapolis, now razed. Plate 17^ 

Throughout these houses there appeared a distinct manner of 
designing and treating wood members which was unlike anything that 
preceded or followed. Posts or shafts (one hesitates to use the word 
column m speakmg of them) had parts which were turned on a lathe 
alternating with square sections — -or with square sections having 
beveled corners. The ' square-molded" parts were sometimes grooved 
or decorated with incised floral patterns. Such posts are seen on veran- 
das, around fireplaces, and on large pieces of furniture; and together 
with panels having similar incised patterns — or perhaps "molded" 
designs carved in relief — they constituted a blockish, angular ensemble 1^3 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

which has long been characterized as "Eastlake" by cabinetmakers 
and architects, both in this country and abroad. 

This period which we are surveying was pre-eminently one of 
skilful woodworking. The lathe, the jigsaw, the molding cutter were 
some of the mechanical tools available to the carpenter-craftsman 
which, together with his hand tools, enabled him to turn out com- 
plex architectural elements with apparent ease. 

We should not close this analysis of the characteristic features of 
these interiors without mentioning that this was the time of extensive 
use of materials other than wood. Stamped leather of dark colors and 
relieved with gold was fashionable, particularly for dados and friezes; 
embossed wallpapers were popular, if one could afford them; stained 
or art glass was inserted in windows on stair landings and sometimes 
in dining rooms; and floors were customarily covered from wall to 
wall with boldly figured Brussels or Wilton carpets. 






n^' r^ UK p yfj^^^^^m 








CLHVENGER-McCONAHA HOUSE. 200 S. Spruce Street, Centerville, Wayne County. 
Thomas Clevenger original owner, Mrs. O. T. McConaha present owner. 
Neo-Jacobean, c. 1887. (Page 151) 

HANSON- DOWDEN HOUSE. 1050 N. Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. 
Julius A. Hanson and Samuel Dowden former owners, Structural Iron Workers Local 
Union No. 22 present owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1875-80. (Page 151) 




138 W. Broadway, Shelbyville, 

Shelby County. 

Harvey H. Daugherty former owner 

Morris Tobian present owner. 

Neo-Jacobean, c. 1880. 

(Page 151) 



313 W. Hill Street, 
Wabash, Wabash Count^^ 
Clark Weesner original owner, 
William H. Talbert present 
owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1885. 
(Pages 151-52) 



212 S. Vine Street, Greencastle, 

Putnam County. 

Frank Gilmore original owner, 

DePauw University present owner. 

Neo-Jacobean, c. 1885. 

(Page 152) 


103 E. National Highway 50, 
Washington, Daviess County. 
Nelson H. Wilson, original 
owner, Doris Beck present 
owner. Neo-Jacobean, 1896. 
J. W. Gaddis architect. 
(Page 152) 


529 N. East Street, Greensburg, 
Decatur County. 

Charles M. Woodfill original owner, 
Louise Robhms present owner. 
Neo-]acohean, 1885-90. (Page 153) 




521 W. Adams Street, 

Muncie, Delaware County. 

Alva L. Kitselman original owner, 

Curtis V. Rector present owner. 

Neo-Jacobean, 1885-90. (Page 153) 



713 N. Michigan Street, Plymouth, 

Marshall County. 

Fred Hill original owner, 

Harvey E. Phillips present owner. 

Neo-Jacobean, c. 1892. (Page 153) 




202 Detroit Street, 

Warsaw, Kosciusko County. 

Charles Wood original owner, 

L. W. Royse later owner, 

Mrs. Carl F. (Florence Royse) 

Speisshofer present owner. 

Neo-Jacobean, c. 1894. 

(Pages 153-54) 


REDMOND-HEALY HOUSE. 912 North Street, Logansport. Cass County. 
John E. Redmond original owner, Mrs. Nora R. M. Healy present owner. 
Neo-Jacobean, 1890. (Page 154) 

'f. Staircase, Boyd-Love House, 
^ Indianapohs, no longer standing 



640 Eighth Street, Columbus, 

Bartholomew County. 

Sebert Hignite original owner, 

Walter Wendel later owner. 

First Methodist Church 

present owner. 

Neo-Jacobean, c. 1885. (Page 154") 


Fireplace, Boyd-Love House, 
Indianapolis, no longer standing 

MORRIS-SWEARINGEN HOUSE. 1422 Broadway, Indianapolis, Marion County. 
Charles Morris early owner, Dohrman Swearingen present owner. 
Neo-Jacobean, c. 1890. (Pages 154-55) 



437 E. New York Street, Indianapolis, 

Marion County. 

Bertha M. Shepherd former owner, 

Robert D. Sowder present owner. 

Neo-Jacobean, c. 1885. (Page 155) 





:4i M .Wmf:-: 


SCHMIDT-SCHAF HOUSE. 1410 N. Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. 
John W. Schmidt original owner, Joseph C. Schaf later owner, 
The Propylaeum present owner. Neo-Jacobean, 1890. (Page 155) 


1204 N. Delaware Street, 

Indianapolis, Marion County. 

George Emery original owner, 

Lyman S. Ayres and Frederic 

M. Ayres later owners, 

Arthur Jordan Foundation 

present owner. 

Neo-Jacobean, 1878. 

Robert P. Daggett architect. 

(Page 155) 


228 N. East Street, Indianapolis, 
Marion County. 
Warren Tate original owner, 
Cecil L. Willis present owner. 
Neo-Jacohean, c. 1890. 
Charles G. Mueller architect. 
(Page 155) 



701 Washington Street, 

Michigan City, 

La Porte County. 

Nathaniel P. Rogers 

original owner, 

George Rogers later owner, 

Mrs. George M. Krieger 

present owner. 

Neo-Jacobean, c. 1890. 

(Page 156) 


114 S. Fifth Street, Goshen, 
Elkhart County. 
J. M. Dale original owner, 
W. A. Dale later owner, 
Mrs. Dorothy Dale Zook 
present owner. 
Neo-Jacobean, c. 1885. 
(Page 156) 



116 N. Jefferson Street, 
Knightstown, Henry County. 
Simon Barrett original owner, 
Frederick W. Frazier present owner. 
Neo-Jacobean, 1891. (Page 156) 



5201 E. Churchman Avenue, 

Indianapolis, Marion Count)^ 

Francis M. Churchman origmal owner, 

Frank L. Churchman present owner. 

Neo-Jacobean, 1871. 

Dietrich A. Bohlen architect. 

(Page 156) 


ORR-RICHTER HOUSE. Small Road east 
of Summit Road, La Porte County. 
William Orr original owner, 
Mrs. Irene Paine Richter present owner. 
Victorian Gothic, c. 1875. (Page 156) 


FILDES-WILSON HOUSE. 209 State Street, 
La Porte, La Porte County. John H. Fildes, Jr., 
original owner, Robert Wilson later owner. 
White Nursing Home present owner. 
Neo-Jacobean, c. 1875. (Page 156) 


1509 Cason Street, 

Lafayette, Tippecanoe County. 

William Perrin original owner, 

Gerry Steill present owner. 

Neo-Swiss, 1879. 

William Perrin and brother 


(Page 157} 


D,tvid ir. Piat 

SMITH-KIELSMEIER HOUSE. 730 Pontiac Street, Rochester, Fulton County. 
Omer Smith original owner, Karl Kielsmeier present owner. 
Neo-Jacobean, 1888. (Page 157) 


Dcrsrt O. riomji 


SEIBERLING-KINGSTON HOUSE. 1200 W. Sycamore Street, Kokomo, Howard Couiuy. 
Monroe Seiberling original owner, George Kingston later owner, Indiana University present owner. 
Neo-Jacohean-Romanesque Revival, 1889-90. Arthur LaBelle architect. (Page 159) 

Washington and Tenth streets, 
Michigan City, La Porte County. 
Charles Porter original owner, 
Lucille Kerrigan present owner. 
Romanesque Revival, c. 1895. 
(Pages 159-60) 


Indianapolis Star 


looo N. Delaware Street, 

Indianapolis, Marion County. 

Milton Cox original owner, 

Daniel Stewart later owner, 

Riley General Insurance Company present owner. 

Romanesque Revival, chateau type, 1876. 

(Page 160) 


Indianapolis Star 

BATES-MCGOWAN HOUSE. 1305 N. Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. 

Hervey Bates, Jr., original owner, Elijah B. Martindale 

and Hugh McGowan later owners, Knights of Columbus present owner. 

Romanesque Revival, chateau type, 1874. William L. Jenney architect. (Page 160) 


721 W.Wayne Street, 
Fort Wayne, Allen County. 
L. O. Hull original owner, 
Ferdinand H. Wiehe present owner. 
Romanesque Revival, c. 1890. 
Wing and Mahurin architects. 
(Page 160) 


TAYLOR-ZENT HOUSE. Tipton and Jefferson streets, Huntington, Huntington County. 
Enos Taylor original owner, Mrs. Herbert Zent later owner, Harley M. Briggs and 
Mrs. Mildred Hurdle present owners. Romanesque Revival, 1898-1900. (Pages 160-61) 


Double, 33-35 N. Tenth Street, 

Richmond, Wayne County. 

Frank C. Vaughan and 

Mrs. Mary Vaughan Reynolds original owners, 

Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd Reath present owners. 

Romanesque Revival, 1896. (Page 161) 


STUDEBAKER HOUSE. 620 W. Washmgton Street, South Bend, St. Joseph County. 
Clement Studebaker original owner, City of South Bend present owner. 
Romanesque Revival, 1886. Cobb and Frost architects. (Page 161) 

Devon Phelps 



Indiana Architects of the 
Nineteenth Century 

As PREVIOUSLY NOTED, most designing and construc- 
l—\ tion of residences in the first part of the nineteenth century 
jL. \- was done by master carpenters and brick masons with the help 
of builders' manuals. However, pubhc buildings and large dwellings 
or "mansions" usually required trained architects, and if qualified men 
were not to be found in certain communities, they could be, and were, 
called from larger cities both in the state and beyond its borders. 

Berry R. Sulgrove, in his History of Indianapolis and Marion County 
(1884), states that in the capital city in the 1830's, "Not much 
was needed of that order of skill [architecture] , as houses were chiefly 
frame, and whatever they were in material they were sure to be the 
same square, plain structures, with no more conception of ornament 
or variety, even of paint, than a saw-log." This observation was made 
by historian Sulgrove apropos of the arrival in 1833 of John Elder, first 
resident architect of Indianapolis (the town was only twelve years old 
at the time). Elder had been living in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, his 
native city, and learning of the competition for designs for a state cap- 
itol, he made his initial contact with Indianapolis, and even though 
the scheme he submitted was not selected, he removed to this town. 

The contract to design the statehouse was awarded to one of the 
best-known architects in America, Ithiel Town, a partner of Andrew 
J. Davis, New York. His plan called for a Doric temple, strongly 
echoing the ancient Greek models except for a large dome on the roof. 
It was completed in 1835, and in all probability was the first temple- 
type Greek Revival building in Indiana. It received much favorable 
comment, but within twenty years it began to go to pieces. The soft 
stone and stucco steadily crumbled until the building became both 
unsafe and unsightly and had to be torn down. The present State- 
house was built between 1878 and 1888. I 8 I 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

In the following summary of the activities of architects we will 
concern ourselves primarily with men who were qualified to designate 
themselves as such, in contrast to carpenters, masons, and master 
builders. According to the historical sketch by Lee Burns, Early Archi- 
tects and Builders of Indiana (1935), the earliest designers and builders 
in the state known by name were Hugh and William Shaw who 
erected Isaac White's home, "White Hall," near Vincennes in 181 1. 
The designation of them as master carpenters, as the author does, 
implies that in addition to doing the woodwork they supervised the 
general construction and may have drawn up the original plans and 
elevations — a relatively easy task in this case. 

At the time White's home was being built, Dennis Pennington 
was erecting the pleasing stone courthouse at Corydon, which later 
was used for a few years as the state capitol. Fortunately, it is still 
standing and cared for as a historical shrine. "White Hall" was torn 
down many years ago. 

The next men we hear about are John E. Baker and James Paxton 
who erected the first Marion County Courthouse at Indianapolis 
between 1823 and 1824, and Peter Johnson whose name is given as the 
architect for South Bend's first courthouse (1832). Johnson was both 
builder and cabinetmaker. We know practically nothing about 
Mathew Temperly who, with his sons William and John, built the 
McKee-Powell-White house at Madison (Plate 5); and the same can 
be said of Edwin J. Peck, designer and builder of the original Second 
Presbyterian Church at Madison (1835), one of the most charming 
Greek Revival structures in the state, now used as the city's com- 
munity center. 

To these isolated names we might add that of Charles B. Freeman, 
who with his son Thomas built the pleasing John W. Wright house 
west of Vevay in 1836 (Plate 43). They were experienced shipbuilders 
and carpenters from Nantucket, who had arrived in Vevay in 1818. 

When we get into the next decade, that of the 1840's, the picture 
is clearer — at least less fragmentary — so far as architects and their 
work is concerned. Some half dozen men who can qualify as knowl- 
edgeable architectural designers and building supervisors have taken 
I O 2 up residence in the state. And enough work is known to help us form 

Indiana Architects of the Nineteenth Century 

a fairly clear picture of their abilities. They are John Elder (mentioned 
above), Francis Costigan, George H. Kyle, Joseph Willis, Edwin May, 
and Henr)' Williams. 

John Elder was born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, September 2, 
1796. In the 1820's he was livmg and working in and around his 
native city, but, as mentioned above, the announcement of the com- 
petition for designs to be used in the erection of the state capitol at 
Indianapolis attracted his attention, and he not only submitted a 
scheme but he decided in 1833 to make this his home. His activities 
are better known to us todav than those of most architects because 
most of his account books and diaries have been preserved. They 
served as the material for an article by Kenneth Loucks, "John Elder: 
Pioneer Builder," in the Indiana Magazine of History, March, 1930. His 
buildings were almost entirelv public structures such as stores, banks, 
hospitals, churches, courthouses, and prisons. Only one residence is 
recorded, the one he built for Henn,' Ward Beecher in Indianapolis, 
which has long since disappeared. Like many others of his day. Elder 
joined the California gold rush in 1850, and died in Sacramento 
seven years later. 

Judging by the superior qualitj' of his work, Francis Costigan was 
the state's outstanding architect in those formative years. He was 
born in Washington, D. C, about 18 10; he worked as a carpenter- 
builder in Baltimore and doubtless learned there the rudiments of an 
architect's trade; he came west and settled in Madison in 1837. The 
town was growing prosperous, and Costigan was able to meet the 
challenge of designing and erecting residences and other buildings 
worthy of the community' and its citizens. Much of his work there 
and in the near-by region has yet to be identified, while the tendency 
of people to assign houses to him without substantial evidence has 
added to the problem of accurately cataloguing his life's work. His 
finest residences in Madison are the James F. D. Lanier mansion 
(Plates 73 and 74) and the Charles Shrewsbury' house (Plate 72), both 
built in the 1840's. In his own home on West Third Street in Madi- 
son he solved the interesting problem of fitting a stately dwelling onto 
a very narrow lot. St. Michael's Catholic Church, which was started 
just before Costigan arrived in Madison, was taken over by him and I 8 ^ 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 


completed in 1839. How much he contributed to its final appearance 
is not known. It is a Gothic Revival building (the earliest in the state) 
and the report that Costigan supervised its construction at a time 
when he was immersed in the spirit of the Greek idiom is intriguing. 

In 1851 Costigan left Madison for Indianapolis. He was asked 
to serve as supervising architect of the Institute for the Blind, replac- 
ing John Elder; later he assumed the same duties in connection with 
the Hospital for the Deaf and Dumb and the Hospital for the 
Insane, the last having been begun by Joseph Curzon and Joseph 
Willis. He also designed the original Odd Fellows Building. All of 
these have been razed, and several residences which he built have 
met the same fate. He died in Indianapolis in 1865. 

George H. Kyle's career began at Vevay around 1840. He was 
a native of Virginia. His works suggest that he had had some sound 
architectural training because of their superior craftsmanship and 
good design. This is especially true of the Dearborn County Court- 
house at Lawrenceburg and the Baptist Church at Vevay. Private 
residences in Vevay built from his designs are the Ulysses P. Schenck 
house (Plate 70), the old Thiebaud home (replaced by a filling 
station), the Hill-Craig house, and the large Benjamin F. Schenck 
dwelling. These range in dates from about 1845 to 1873, and strik- 
ingly reveal the evolution of an architect's taste from the Greek 
Revival to the late Italianate style — the same evolution Costigan 
went through during the same years. In 1885 Kyle left Vevay for 
Memphis, Tennessee, where he died in 1895. 

Joseph Willis appears but vaguely among the architects of the 
1840's, since dates and places of his birth and death are not known. 
He was at Logansport around 1840, erecting the courthouse, but 
after a couple of years he was released from the contract, presumably 
because he was unable to complete the building at his estimated 
cost. In 1847, in Indianapolis, he replaced John Elder as architect 
for the Hospital for the Insane, but five years later was replaced in 
turn by Joseph Curzon. The old Masonic Hall that stood diag- 
onally across the street from the statehouse was Willis' most pop- 
ular creation. 

In contrast to Willis, Edwin May is a more distinct personality. 

Indiana Architects of the Nineteenth Century 

He was born at Boston in 1824. When he was about sixteen years 
of age his parents brought him to Madison, Indiana, and then, a 
few years later, to IndianapoHs. He started his architectural pro- 
fession early. In 1849 he had the contract to build the courthouse 
at Franklin based on drawings by John Elder, which suggest that 
he got his training in Elder's drafting room. One might reasonably 
dub May a courthouse builder; he designed and built six in the 
state, not counting the one at Franklin. He also won the competition 
for the new statehouse at Indianapolis, but he died in 1880 soon 
after the first stage of its construction was under way. If he took time 
to design private dwellings, none have survived, or if they have, 
they are not now identifiable as his work. 

Henry Williams, the last of the architects of the 1840's men- 
tioned above, practiced in Fort Wayne. Practically nothing is known 
of his life except a report that he came from the South. He appears 
on the architectural scene in 1838 as the designer of the Hugh 
McCulIoch residence at Fort Wayne and he later designed and built 
the imposing Samuel Hanna homestead in 1845 in the same city 
(Plate 38). Both reveal exceptional skill and ability. 

As might be expected, the rapid growth of population in the 
years before and after the Civil War resulted in an equally rapid 
increase in available architectural talent. In the 1850's Indianapolis 
had six professional architects: Francis Costigan, William Tinsley, 
Dietrich A. Bohlen, Isaac Hodgson, Joseph Curzon, and Edwin 
May. In Madison, one of Indiana's most prosperous and progressive 
towns, there were the partners Cochran and Pattie (Costigan had 
left for Indianapolis in 1851); and in near-by Lawrenceburg Jesse 
Hunt was practicing. At Evansville, a competing river town, there 
were James Roquet and Robert Byrd. Samuel McElfatrick was 
beguming his work at Fort Wayne as the decade of the fifties came to 
a close; and J. T. Smith of Rush County received recognition on the 
basis of his drawings for the Jeremiah Beckner house (Plate 142) 
which won a prize at the Indiana State Fair of 1852. In the i86o's 
the number of architects (or at least of designers who called them- 
selves architects) triples. The Indianapolis directories list a total of 
eighteen compared to the six in the preceding decade. Five of these I O 5 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

six who continued to practice are included in the eighteen, Tinsley 
being the only one no longer listed. In other towns over the state the 
same situation prevailed. 

Space does not permit lengthy biographical sketches, but some 
remarks about a few of the men might be of interest. Of the Indian- 
apolis group named above, Francis Costigan and Edwin May have 
already been discussed. William Tinsley, a native of Ireland (born 
at Clonmel in 1804), was in Cincinnati before coming to Indiana 
with his family in 1853 or 1854. He was attracted to Indianapolis by 
the prospect of designing and building Northwestern Christian 
University. His work in Indiana included Center Hall at Wabash 
College and Christ Church at Indianapolis, the last regarded as Tin- 
sley's finest ecclesiastical building in America by John D. Forbes, 
author of Victorian Architect: the Life and Work of William Tinsley (1953). 
Sulgrove, in his History of Indianapolis, speaks of the architect's designs 
of asylums and better business blocks, but few of these can be 
identified now. 

Dietrich A. Bohlen, whose name appears in the first Indianapolis 
directory (1857), came to the town in 1853. He was born near 
Hannover, Germany, in 1827, migrated to the United States in 
1852, reaching Indianapolis a year later. He was in Costigan's draft- 
ing room a short time before establishing his own practice. The 
firm he established has been in operation since his time, having been 
successfully continued by his son and grandson. 

To list all of Bohlen's work, and that of his firm, during the five 
decades of the nineteenth century is beyond the scope of this review. 
Residences designed by him are fewer than public buildings, and only 
four or five can now be identified. Two of his most distinguished 
designs have been razed: the E. C. Atkins and J. C. Ferguson homes 
that formerly stood on North Meridian Street, Indianapolis. Two 
others, still standing, are included in this book: the Morris-Butler- 
Pace house (Plate 155) and the large Churchman place (Plate 181). 

Isaac Hodgson and Joseph Curzon, the remaining two of the six 

Indianapolis architects of the 1850's, deserve more recognition than 

they have received in the past — and also more than they will get here. 

x86 Both were born abroad: Hodgson in Belfast, Ireland, in 1826, and 

Indiana Architects of the Nineteenth Century 

Curzon in Derbyshire, England. They were about the same age, they 
arrived here around the same time — in the early 1850's — and they 
must have been competitors for a number of good commissions 
which were awarded for public and private structures at that time. 
Both practiced in and around Indianapolis until the mid-eighties. 

Hodgson built a number of county courthouses in the state, in- 
cluding the second one at Indianapolis, as well as college buildings 
(Rose Polytechnic Institute, Terre Haute, for instance) and other 
institutional structures. In the i88o's he had as his partners Charles A. 
Wallingford and John H. Stem, both of whom had been operating 
independently here before the merger. Many private dwellings de- 
signed by Hodgson and his firm are known by the names of their 
original owners, through listings in the then current architectural 
magazines such as the Inland Architect and Builder. However, few of them 
are still standing or can now be identified. 

Curzon's first important commission was the city's first union 
railway station, replaced by the present formidable Romanesque 
structure in 1888. His well-designed Second Presbyterian Church has 
also disappeared from the Indianapolis scene. One of his most impos- 
ing residences, the Albert E. Fletcher house, still stands, however, on 
North Pennsylvania Street (Plate 137). 

Nearly every large town in the state had its local architect or 
master builder during the decade following the Civil War. Most of 
them are listed in the city directories (when there were directories) or 
in the Indiana State Gazetteer, but in very few cases can their work be 
identified. A cursory list would be: J. K. Prick and Henry Mursinna 
(designer of the Heilman house, Plate 138) at Evansville; Samuel 
McElfatrick and D. J. Silver at Fort Wayne; Jesse Hunt at Lawrence- 
burg; S. Marsh and John L. Smithmyer at South Bend (Smithmyer 
designed the fine old courthouse there which was completed in 1866); 
Joseph Brown at Lafayette; A. W. Cornell, George Hoover, and Arte- 
mus Roberts at Richmond; A. M. Connett and his brother at Madi- 
son; and James A. W. Koonz at New Albany. 

The scene becomes so complex in the last quarter of the nine- 
teenth century that only a suggestion of the extent of architectural 
activity will be made here. Increasing population, growing wealth, I 8*7 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

and swelling ambitions throughout America were reflected in what 
now appears as a building fever of large commercial and civic build- 
ings, as well as costly and pretentious houses. In 1870 the editor of 
Architectural Review and Builder's Journal anticipated this building boom 
in this observation: 

The season before us is one of great promise^ whatever dearth ofoffce business may 
exist compared with former years. Therefore, there is no reason for despondency among 
architects generally. There is tmlimited capital in the country ready for investment, 
and there is likewise a growing comprehension of the greatness which vast, chaste and 
elegant construction confers upon a rising nation like ours. 

To the roster of architects in Indianapolis in this period several 
names were added. Some of the established men had died or moved 
away, but a dozen or more younger (and in many cases better-trained) 
ones arrived in the capital city between 1870 and 1900. One who 
became conspicuous and who established another local "dynasty," was 
Robert P. Daggett, one of whose fine residences is included in the 
illustrations (Plate 176). Others were William H. Brown, designer 
of the old Vance Block and the Dr. Luther D. Waterman residence 
in Indianapolis, both now razed; George W. Bunting, another 
designer of county courthouses (at Crawfordsville, Washington, 
and Liberty), and presumably some dwellings; B. V. Enos, whose 
specialty seems to have been churches; Bernard Vonnegut, whose 
partner in the 1890's was Arthur Bohn; Louis Gibson, of Ketcham and 
Gibson, who, in addition to being an architect, wrote an essay on 
Indiana art which included a section on architects and architecture; 
Adolf Scherrer who was in Edwin May's drafting room and succeeded 
May in the erection of the statehouse, and who designed many educa- 
tional and religious buildings; and Herbert W. Foltz, who appears on 
the scene not long before the century comes to a close. 

Out through the state activity was equally great and the increase 
of new architectural talent likewise marked in the seventies and fol- 
lowing decades. Records indicate that Fort Wayne had the largest 
number of resident architects outside Indianapolis, including F. B. 
and Charles E. Kendrick, J. F. Wing and Marshall S. Mahurin 
X 8 8 (designers of the HuU-Wiehe house, Plate 190), H. M. Matson and 

Indiana Architects of the Nineteenth Century 

Brentwood S. Tolan (designers of the Allen County Courthouse), 
and Alfred Grindle. 

Two of the leading Richmond architects were William S. Kauf- 
man and John A. Hasecoster; Arthur LaBelle practiced in Marion 
and Kokomo (see Plate 186); A. D. Mohler at Huntington; John 
Link and H. L. Nichols at Bloomington; James F. Alexander, George 
S. Brown, and Alonzo Fleming at Lafayette; and S. R. Berry at Pern. 

Active in Muncie were George H. Keeler and Edwin M. Cramer; 
Joseph E. Grain, of Grain and Krutch, and J. H. Rhodes were work- 
ing at Logansport; W. H. Floyd (Floyd and Stone), Charles N. 
Gould, and Alfred N. Austin at Terre Haute (Austin was selected 
to design the Indiana Building at the Columbian Exposition of 1893); 
also in Terre Haute — and in Evansville — was Josse A. Vrydagh, 
a native of Belgium, who was well known as a designer of schools 
and courthouses; John W. Hammond was at Frankfort and J. N. 
Jones at Goshen. 

J. W. Gaddis of Vincennes designed two houses which can be 
identified now as his work, both in Washington (see Plates 150 and 
166); N. Weaver and his son practiced at Elkhart; George Pearson 
was at Attica, where several of his houses are identified by names of 
owners in the Inland Architect and Builder in the mid-eighties; and James 
W. Reid and his brother Merritt of Evansville built residences in 
Henderson, Kentucky, and in Princeton and other southwestern 
Indiana towns. Reid was one of the charter members of the Indiana 
Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, organized at Indian- 
apolis in May, 1884. 

The formation of the Indiana Chapter was a significant milestone 
in the history of architecture in the state. It helped to give architects 
a more professional standing in their communities by regulating 
practices based on high principles, good craftsmanship, and superior 
design. The nine charter members were Isaac Hodgson, C. A.Walling- 
ford, J. H. and A. H. Stem, J. W. Reid, Charles Eppinghausen, B. V. 
Enos, Charles Miller, and F. W. Vogdes. The last three were associ- 
ate members. Wallingford was elected president. 

In spite of the many first-rate architects in Indiana several good 
commissions went to out-of-state men during the nineteenth century. I O Q 

Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 

Mention has already been made of Ithiel Town, of New York, who 
designed the statehouse in 1831. William LeBaron Jenney, noted Chi- 
cago architect, designed the imposing Bates-McGowan residence at 
Indianapolis (Plate 189); and Bruno Schmitz, of Coblenz, Germany, 
submitted the winning plans for the Soldiers and Sailors Monument. 
In other cities of the state we find, for instance, that W. Russell 
West, of Cincinnati, designed the Episcopal Church at Madison 
(1850); Sidney J. Osgood, of Grand Rapids, planned the First Pres- 
byterian Church at Richmond; Cicero Hine, Chicago architect, built 
the George Brown residence at Chesterton; Samuel Haimeford of 
Cincinnati designed the First Baptist Church at Muncie, as well as 
residences at Lawrenceburg, including the fine Hayes-Cook house 
(Plate 158); E. O. Falls of Toledo built the Montgomery County 
Courthouse at Crawfordsville; while Cobb and Frost of Chicago were 
the designers of the ostentatious mansion at South Bend built for 
Clement Studebaker (Plate 193). Another Chicago architect and 
builder, T. Tilly, drew up plans for the large Anson Wolcott house 
at Wolcott (Plate 140), according to the recently published Wolcott 
Centennial History. 



A BOUT ten years ago the Indiana Historical Society under- 
/_ took a statewide survey of Indiana nineteenth-century 

JL \^ architecture. Many persons throughout the state have gen- 
erously co-operated in this project, and a large file of material has 
been gathered. This has been of great help to the author in the prep- 
aration of the present volume. All of the material that has been 
collected will be preserved in the Indiana Historical Society's library 
along with the correspondence, photographs, and other items that 
the author has assembled in his research. The help of the following 
persons in this undertaking is gratefully acknowledged. 

Margaret W. Askren, Indianapolis; Mrs. Otto Baker, West La- 
fayette; Will Ball, Logansport; R. E. Banta, Crawfordsville; Cecil 
Beeson, Sr., Hartford City; Evelyn Bevan, Mooresville; Mrs. James 
A. Bevan, Crown Point; Margaret Billingsley, Rising Sun; Mrs. 
George W. Blair, Mishawaka; Thomas R. Booher, Muncie; Bob 
Brant, Shelbyville; Mrs. Yale Butler, Franklin; Viola Macy Butts, 
Winchester; Bernice Carver, Columbia City; Orpheus O. Cauble, 
Salem; Peter Certia, Fort Wayne; Mrs. Mabelle Nichols Collins, 
New Albany; Hermine W. Colson, Bluffton; Mrs. Ruth Demmary 
Cowgill, Williamsport; Lulie Davis, Salem; Virgil E. Davis, Brook- 
ville; Mrs. Fred Deal, La Grange; Mrs. C. R. Demmary, Williams- 
port; Thomas J. Dillingham, Boonville (deceased); Clyde F. Dreis- 
bach. Fort Wayne; Clarence A. Dryden, Hanover; Edward R. Dun- 
lap, Plymouth; Mrs. Bess V. Ehrmann, Rockport; Helen Elliott, 
New Harmony; Mrs. Alfred N. Ellis, Dana; Kate D. Emery, Bed- 
ford; Howard Ewbank, Rushville (deceased); Charles H. Fieldhouse, 
Elkhart; Pearl Finley, Brazil; W. A. Gumberts, Evansville; Catherine 
T. Geisel, Williamsport; Mrs. Lora Gore, Shelbyville; Frederick P. 
Griffin, Corydon; Theodore G. Gronert, Crawfordsville; James IQI 


Guthrie, Bedford; Mrs. James F. Halberstadt, Sr., Decatur; C. V. 
Haworth, Kokomo; Harry C. Hougham, Franklin (deceased); Paul 
Huber, Greensburg; Mrs. Harry V. Hyatt, Washington; Mrs. Car- 
roll A. Johnson, Bedford; Mrs. Louis Johnson, Attica; Mrs. William 
R. Johnson, Martinsville; Mrs. J. J. Kemper, Morristown; Mrs. Rue 
Green, La Porte; Julie LeClerc Knox, Vevay; Roscoe R. Leak, Liz- 
ton; Mrs. W. H. Lykins, Covington; Alameda McCullough, La- 
fayette; Mrs. James T. McManaman, Lawrenceburg; Mrs. Frank E. 
Martin, Bedford; Mrs. B. B. Mayhill. Delphi; M. D. Meiser, Elk- 
hart; James P. MuUin, Brookville; William D. Murray, Lawrence- 
burg; C. W. Nelson, Chesterton; Arthur C. Nordhoff, Jasper; Jane 
M. North, Rising Sun; Lamont O'Harra, New Castle; Margaret E. 
Paddock, Greenwood; Ethel R. Palmer, Rising Sun; Juliet Peddle, 
Terre Haute; Walter Pickart, Gary; Carrie E. Pierce, Greencastle; 
Mary Myrtle Posey, Rockport; Mrs. Blanche Richey, Shelbyville; 
J. Ray Ross, Columbus; Mrs. Paul L. Ross, Richmond; Jennie A, 
Russ, Michigan City; Ruby Tate Rynearson, Connersville; Mrs. 
A. G. Saxon, Connersville; Lorenz Schumm, La Porte (deceased); 
Goldie Shanahan, Rising Sun; Mary Shultz, Logansport; Dr. A. B. 
Smith, Elkhart; Mrs. Clara Crawford Smith, Williamsport; Harry 
M. Smith, Connersville; Mrs. Norbert Smith, Valparaiso; Ruth 
Helen Snyder, Rockville; William H. Stemm, Elkhart; Elsa Strass- 
weg. New Albany; Mary Toohy, Rising Sun; Mrt,. Harry T. Watts, 
Vincennes; Mrs. William West, Peru; Vesper Wilkinson, Peru; 
John T. Windle, Madison; Mrs. Walter Wintin, Shelbyville; Elmo 
S. Wood, New Castle; Wilk H. Works, Vevay; Harold Zisla, 
South Bend. 


Index by Towns 

Arlington, 126; Plate 142 

Attica, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 123; 

Plates 42, 60, 69, 71 
Aurora, 126-27; Plate 143 
Avoca, 18 

Battle Ground, 92; Plate 92 
Bedford, 15, 16 
Bentonville, 118-19; Plate 98 
Bloomington, 14, 15; 

Plates II, 15 
Brazil, 121; Plate 108 
Brimfield, 45 
Bristol, 45; Plates 46, 48 
Brookville, 13-14, 16, 17, 130; 

Plates 8, 19, 147 

Cambridge City, 17, 48, 127; 

Plates 62, 145 
Cannelton, 13 
Centerville, 14-15, 91, 151; 

Plates 13, 89, 161 
Chesterfield, 16 
Chesterton, 190 
Clinton, 121, 122; Plate 118 
Cloverdale, 93-94; Plate 93 
Columbus, 154; Plate 172 
Connersville, 18, 41, 126; 

Plates 26, 30, 139 
Corydon, 11, 13, 182; Plate 3 
Crawfordsville, 14, 16, 43, 44, 46, 

88-89, ^^3' ^9°'' Plates 10, 17, 36, 

39, 84, 122 

Danville, 87; Plate 77 
Delphi, 46, 88, 125; 
Plates 53, 83, 134 
Dublin, 18, 47; Plates 25, 57 
Dupont, 46; Plate 49 

Edinburg, 123, 124; Plate 127 
Ellettsville, 132; Plate 160 
Evansville, 49, 123, 126, 130-31, 

131-32, 187; 

Plates 68, 123, 138, 148, 152, 

153. 157 

Fairbanks, Plate 83 

Fairfield (Oakford), Plate 109 

Fort Wayne, 13, 16, 43, 44, 47-48, 

123, 125, 126, 160, 185, 188-89; 

Plates 38, 61, 124, 190 
Fountain City, li; Plate 4 
Franklin, 87; Plate 79 

Glenwood, 46; Plate 52 
Goshen, 41-42, 126-27, 156; 

Plates 31, 144, 179 
Greencastle, 152; Plates 146, 165 
Greenfield, 118; Plate 97 
Greensburg, 87, 120, 153; 

Plates 75, 102, 167 
Guilford, 13 

Hagerstown, 119; Plate 99 
Hanover, 13, 87; Plate 78 
Hartford, 15, 42; Plate 33 





Howe, 45; Plate 45 
Huntington, 122, 160-61; 
Plates 121, 191 

Indianapolis, 94, 121, 124, 125, 127, 
130, 131, 151, 154-55, 156, 160, 
161, 186, 187, 188, 190; Plates 
no, III, 112, 129, 133, 137, 151, 
155, 162, 171, 17?. 174. 175. 176, 
177, 181, 188, 189 

Jasper, 17; Plate 21 
Jeffersonville, 16-17; Plate 20 

Kendallville, 122; Plate 117 
Knightstown, 92, 120, 131, 156; 

Plates 91, 156, 180 
Kokomo, 120, 121, 159; 

Plates 104, 109, 186 

Laconia, 37, 38; Plate 29 

Lafayette, 42, 44, 88, 121, 122, 125, 

132, 157: Plates 32, 41, 82, 114, 

159, 184 
La Porte, 14, 120, 156; 

Plates 12, 105, 182, 183 
Laurel, 13 
Lawrenceburg, lo-li, 13, 119, 125, 

126, 131-32, 190; 

Plates 2, loi, 135, 158 
Lewisville, 47 

Liberty, 47, 123-24; Plate 128 
Logansport, 42-43, 94, 121, 122, 

123, 125, 154; 

Plates 35, 113, 119, 132, 171 

Madison, 11-12, 12-13, 15, 38, 40, 
44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 182, 183-84, 

Plates 5, 6, 7, 14, 19, 28, 44, 54, 
67, 72, 73, 74 

Marion, 42; Plate 34 
Michigan City, 156, 159-60; 

Plates 178, 187 
Michigantown, 120; Plate 103 
Muncie, 153, 190; Plate 168 

New Albany, 39, 119, 122, 123, 131; 

Plates 100, 120, 125, 154 
Newburgh, 15-16; Plate 16 
New Carlisle, 94, 126; Plate 141 
New Castle, 49; Plate 66 
New Harmony, 46, 89; Plates 55, 86 
New Haven, 44; Plate 40 
Newport, 95 
Noblesville, 18; Plate 23 
North Vernon, 43; Plate 37 

Oakford, see Fairfield 
Oldenburg, 13 

Paoli, 40 

Patriot, II 

Pennville, 90; Plate 88 

Perrysville, 47, 48; Plates 59, 64 

Peru, 46, 130; Plates 50, 149 

Plymouth, 153; Plate 169 

Raleigh, 94; Plate 95 

Richmond, 123, 124, 125, 161, 190; 

Plates 126, 130, 136, 192 
Rising Sun, 16, 39, 42, 125; 

Plates 18, 131 
Rob Roy, 14; Plate 9 
Rochester, 87, 157; Plates 76, 185 
Rockport, 94; Plate 94 
Rolling Prairie, 45, 47; Plates 47, 56 
Rushville, 45, 91-92; Plate 90 

St. Paul, 13 
Scipio, 47; Plate 58 
Shelburn, 18 



Shelbyville, 122, 151-52; 

Plates 116, 163 
South Bend, 88, 161, 190; 

Plates 81, 193 

Terre Haute, 18, 39, 94, 120, 121, 

187; Plates 24, 106, 107 
Tunnelton, 121; Plate 115 

Valparaiso, 94; Plate 96 

Vemon, 48; Plate 63 

Vevay, II, 13, 16, 18, 44-45, 46, 49- 

50, 89, 127-28, 182, 184; 

Plates 22, 43, 51, 65, 70, 85 

Vincennes, 10, 19, 37-38; 
Plates I, 27 

Wabash, 89-90, 127, 151-52; 

Plates 87, 146, 164 
Warsaw, 153-54; Plate 170 
Washington, 130, 152-53, 189; 

Plates 150, 166 
Westfield, 120 

Williamsport, 88, 123; Plate 80 
Wirt, 47 
Wolcott, 126, 190; Plate 140 



3 0112 033227114